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, but it only states 'Call the endpoint' without explaining what the tool does (e.g., retrieves detailed invoice data for SMEs), its effects (read-only vs. mutative), authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

While concise with one sentence, the description is under-specified and fails to convey useful information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes the opportunity to inform, so it scores low despite its brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely retrieves detailed billing data. It does not explain the tool's function, return values, or usage context, leaving significant gaps that hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly in a complex server environment with many siblings.

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 100% description coverage, clearly defining 'invoice_id' as the ID of the invoice. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents the single parameter without requiring extra detail from the description.

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_billing_invoice_sme_detail endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal action ('Call'), failing to specify what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cldkctl_billing_invoice_sme' or other billing tools, leaving the purpose vague beyond invoking an endpoint.

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, such as 'cldkctl_billing_invoice_sme' for a summary or other billing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it misleadingly incomplete for an agent to decide appropriately.

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