Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the auto-fetching of eTag, return structure (updated case with nextAssignmentInfo or confirmationNote), and the workflow progression behavior for local vs. connector actions. It doesn't cover error handling or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical usage information. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives timing, third covers eTag behavior, fourth describes returns, fifth explains action types. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the workflow context, return values, and action types. It covers the essential 'what happens when you call this' but doesn't detail error cases or all possible return scenarios. Given the complexity, it's quite complete but not exhaustive.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about auto-fetching eTag and the purpose of content/attachments/pageInstructions, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('perform an assignment action to submit completed work and progress workflow'), identifies the resource ('assignment'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's the 'FINAL step after all required fields are filled' and mentioning different types of actions (local vs. connector). This goes beyond just restating the name.

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 usage guidance: it specifies when to use ('FINAL step after all required fields are filled'), distinguishes between local and connector actions, and implicitly suggests alternatives by referencing 'get_assignment' to find correct action IDs. It also mentions prerequisites like required fields and assignment views.

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