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 full burden. It mentions the tool is in 'Beta' which suggests potential instability, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'highlighted' means in practice (e.g., format, markup). The description is minimal beyond the core functionality.

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 front-loads the key information. The '(Beta)' tag is appropriately placed. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 'highlighted' output looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with a specific feature like highlighting and experimental status, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'assetId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or relationship to highlighting). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('asset content') with a specific feature ('with all page highlightable issues highlighted'). It distinguishes from basic 'get_asset' and 'get_asset_content' by specifying the highlighting aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_asset_issues' which might overlap conceptually.

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 like 'get_asset_content' or 'get_asset_issues'. The '(Beta)' tag hints at experimental status but doesn't specify limitations or preferred use cases. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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