MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Call the... endpoint,' which reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—whether it's a mutation (likely, given 'edit'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that appears to modify resources.

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, concise sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes the opportunity to convey purpose or usage in its brevity. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it minimally adequate in structure but lacking in substance.

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 editing a data volume (likely a mutation with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain what 'edit' means, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, but it only provides a generic endpoint call statement. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Project ID', 'Data Volume name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. However, since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't enhance understanding.

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_edit_data_volume endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It vaguely implies an edit operation on a data volume but lacks specificity about what 'edit' entails (e.g., modifying configuration, resizing, updating metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_data_volume' or 'cldkctl_delete_data_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. The description offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., existing data volume), when editing is appropriate versus creating/deleting, or any constraints (e.g., only certain fields modifiable). With many sibling tools for data volume operations, this omission is significant.

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