CloudForge MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Save or update' which implies mutation, but fails to specify whether this creates new diagrams or overwrites existing ones, what permissions are required, or if there are rate limits. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or how to handle errors. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 5 parameters including their types, enums, and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Save or update') and resource ('a diagram in CloudForge'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cloudforge_get_diagram' or 'cloudforge_delete_diagram' in terms of specific use cases, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cloudforge_get_diagram' for retrieval or 'cloudforge_delete_diagram' for removal. It also lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if there are limitations on diagram size or format.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.