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 searches for assets but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of assets with metadata), how results are ordered, pagination behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search for assets') and includes only essential clarifying information ('pages that have been scanned'). Every word 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 (search operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how to interpret results, or behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors. For a search tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 fully documents the three parameters (websiteId, query, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or limit defaults. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra value.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('assets'), with additional clarifying information about what assets are ('pages that have been scanned'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset (single retrieval) or list_websites (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 (for a specific asset) or list_websites (for websites instead of assets). It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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