MCP cldkctl 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. However, it offers no information about the tool's behavior—such as whether it's a mutation operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or response format. This lack of transparency is critical for a tool that likely creates resources, leaving the agent unaware of risks or outcomes.

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_create_crd endpoint', which is concise but under-specified—it lacks essential details like purpose or usage. While it avoids verbosity, it does not front-load critical information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 creating a CRD (a nested object parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected outcomes, which are essential for a mutation tool. This inadequacy leaves the agent poorly equipped to handle the tool effectively, failing to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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, with 'crd_data' documented as 'CRD data'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain the structure, format, or examples of CRD data. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to enhance parameter understanding, such as detailing nested object requirements.

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_create_crd endpoint' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'cldkctl_create_crd' without specifying what the tool actually does. While 'create_crd' hints at creating a Custom Resource Definition, the description fails to clearly state the verb and resource, making it vague. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'cldkctl_edit_crd' or 'cldkctl_delete_crd', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other CRD-related tools like 'cldkctl_edit_crd' or 'cldkctl_delete_crd'. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction, making it misleading in terms of proper tool selection.

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