Crownpeak DQM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it creates assets as a side effect, what the output format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with potential side effects (creating assets), this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and parameter grouping. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens when assets are created as a side effect, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational context.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by grouping parameters into two logical paths (existing asset vs new asset creation), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Run spellcheck' on the resource 'asset', specifying it can operate on either existing assets or create new ones from website content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset, update_asset, or delete_asset which perform different operations on 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 provides clear context on when to use each parameter option (assetId vs websiteId+url/html), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like run_quality_check which might include spellchecking. It gives practical guidance but lacks exclusion criteria.

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