JFrog MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a runtime cluster, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the cluster ID is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., cluster details, status), error conditions, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'clusterId' documented as 'The ID of the cluster to retrieve'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the parameter concept without additional details like format constraints or examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'return a runtime cluster by id' states the basic action (return/retrieve) and resource (runtime cluster), but it's vague about what 'return' entails (e.g., fetch details, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_list_runtime_clusters' by specifying retrieval of a single cluster, but lacks specificity about the nature of the returned data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid cluster ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jfrog_list_runtime_clusters' for bulk retrieval. The description implies usage when you have a specific cluster ID, but this is inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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