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 states the tool retrieves details but does not specify what details are included, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any limitations (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative to improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves details. It does not explain what details are returned, potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use in a context with multiple related tools.

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 the 'websiteId' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 'Get details of a specific website' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('website'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_asset' or 'list_websites', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this tool from others that also retrieve website-related information.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'list_websites' (for listing multiple websites) or 'get_asset' (which might retrieve similar data), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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