Pega DX MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (jumps to a step and returns step details with navigation breadcrumb), mentions the return structure ('Additional "navigation" node will be returned under "uiResources"'), and provides context about step ID formats. However, it doesn't explicitly mention potential side effects like state changes or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a navigation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by usage context and step ID guidance. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value (purpose, return structure, use cases, step ID discovery). It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient overall.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose, usage context, and return structure. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more explicit information about potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements to be fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining step ID formats and discovery methods, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter clarification given the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('jump to', 'return details') and resources ('step within an assignment's navigation flow'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it's for direct navigation rather than sequential progression, unlike tools like 'navigate_assignment_previous' or 'get_next_assignment'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for multi-step assignments, screen flows, and complex processes where you need to navigate directly to a specific step rather than progressing sequentially') and how to discover valid step IDs ('use get_assignment to see current step context, check navigation breadcrumb information, or examine the assignment's process flow'). It clearly differentiates this from sequential navigation approaches.

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