MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Call the cldkctl_audit_log endpoint,' which gives no information about whether this is a read, write, or destructive operation, what permissions are required, any rate limits, or what the response entails. This leaves the agent with no behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe or effective use.

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 sentence, 'Call the cldkctl_audit_log endpoint,' which is concise but under-specified. It wastes an opportunity to provide essential context, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. While it's front-loaded, the lack of meaningful content reduces its utility, scoring low due to under-specification.

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 implied by the tool name (likely involving audit logs in a system with many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. No annotations or output schema exist, and the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent unable to understand or invoke the tool correctly in 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented or required. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters to explain, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't introduce confusion or omissions regarding parameters.

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 'Call the cldkctl_audit_log endpoint' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with 'Call' as a generic verb. It doesn't specify what the endpoint does (e.g., retrieve audit logs, generate logs, or manage log settings), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_*' tools that suggest retrieval operations. This provides minimal actionable information beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'cldkctl_get_*' for retrieval, 'cldkctl_create_*' for creation), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or what specific audit log functionality it handles.

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