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 behavior. It only states the action of calling an endpoint, with no details on effects (e.g., whether it's a mutation, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits). This is inadequate for a tool that likely creates a resource, as it lacks critical behavioral context.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's a single sentence that merely rephrases the tool name without adding useful information. While brief, it fails to convey essential details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent, especially given the complexity implied by sibling tools.

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 one parameter 'datavolume_data' described as 'Data Volume data'. The description adds no further meaning beyond this, such as explaining what fields 'datavolume_data' should contain or its structure. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the 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 'Call the cldkctl_create_data_volume endpoint' is tautological—it restates the tool name with 'call' and 'endpoint' added, failing to specify what the tool actually does. It does not clarify what 'create data volume' entails, such as creating a storage resource in a cloud or Kubernetes environment, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'cldkctl_create_pvc' or 'cldkctl_create_persistent_volume'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'cldkctl_create_pvc' and 'cldkctl_create_persistent_volume', the description offers no context on differences, prerequisites, or scenarios for choosing this tool, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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