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. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose ('List all checkpoints') and adds the optional filtering detail. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and structured for its function.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral aspects like response format or limitations, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's 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 parameter 'websiteId' fully documented in the schema as an optional string for filtering. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by website', which aligns with but doesn't expand beyond the schema. 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 'List' and the resource 'checkpoints (quality rules)', with optional filtering by website. It distinguishes checkpoints as quality rules, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_checkpoint' or 'run_quality_check', keeping it from 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 mentions optional filtering by website, which provides some usage context, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_checkpoint' for a single checkpoint or 'run_quality_check' for executing checks. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is given.

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