Crownpeak DQM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'will create an asset, scan it, and return the results,' which implies a write operation and asynchronous processing, but fails to specify critical details like whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Run a quality check...') and follow with key behavioral steps ('create an asset, scan it, return results'). There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating input options from output expectations.

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 complexity of a tool that creates assets and performs scans (implying mutation and potential async operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or what 'results' entail, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is a significant gap for a tool with behavioral implications.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (websiteId, url, html, metadata) with their types and descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying that 'url' and 'html' are alternative inputs for scanning, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format requirements or mutual exclusivity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: 'Run a quality check on a URL or HTML content' with specific verbs ('create an asset, scan it, return results'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_asset' or 'spellcheck_asset' by focusing on initiating a new quality check process rather than retrieving or analyzing existing assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_assets' or 'update_asset' in terms of when to create vs. modify assets.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'URL or HTML content' and the creation of an asset, suggesting it's for initiating new scans. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_asset_errors' for existing results or 'update_asset' for modifications. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, such as whether the website must exist or if authentication is required.

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