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 the endpoint call, failing to mention that this is a destructive operation (deleting a pod), potential side effects (e.g., service disruption), authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, even if insufficient overall.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive pod deletion), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it is highly incomplete. The description fails to explain critical aspects like what happens upon deletion, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (project_id, namespace, name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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_delete_pod endpoint' is tautological—it restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While 'delete_pod' implies deleting a Kubernetes pod, the description lacks specificity about what resource is being deleted (a pod) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_delete_deployment' or 'cldkctl_k8s_pod_delete'. It states the action but not the context or scope.

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 many sibling tools for deletion (e.g., 'cldkctl_delete_deployment', 'cldkctl_k8s_pod_delete'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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