Crownpeak DQM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that errors are retrieved 'with content highlighting the issues,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the return structure looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail about content highlighting. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with two parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at the output format ('with content highlighting'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, error scenarios, or return values. This leaves gaps in understanding for effective agent use.

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, with clear documentation for both parameters ('assetId' and 'checkpointId'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between asset and checkpoint or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get asset errors for a specific checkpoint, with content highlighting the issues.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('asset errors'), and scope ('for a specific checkpoint'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_asset_issues' or 'get_asset_status', which might have overlapping functions. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 does not mention when to choose it over sibling tools such as 'get_asset_issues' or 'get_asset_status', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent without clear direction.

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