MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how changes are applied, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies 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?

While concise with a single sentence, the description is under-specified and fails to convey useful information. It wastes space on a tautological statement ('Call the... endpoint') rather than being front-loaded with actionable details, making it inefficient 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?

The description is completely inadequate given the tool's complexity (4 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations). It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for a mutation tool in a resource management context.

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%, providing clear parameter documentation (e.g., 'Project ID', 'PVC name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'pvc_data' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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_edit_pvc endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'edit a Persistent Volume Claim') and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_create_pvc' or 'cldkctl_delete_pvc', making it unhelpful for understanding the tool's function.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when editing a PVC is appropriate), or differentiate it from related tools like 'cldkctl_create_pvc' or 'cldkctl_get_pvc', 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.