PingOne Advanced Identity Cloud MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as specifying deletion by ID, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, irreversible effects, or error handling. With annotations covering the key safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint=true) but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral nuances, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (objectType and objectId). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of objectId or elaborating on objectType values. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a managed object by ID from PingOne AIC'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteTheme' or 'deleteVariable' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the object ID from 'listManagedObjects'), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'patchManagedObject' for updates, leaving usage context unclear.

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