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 action of calling an endpoint, without mentioning that this is a mutation operation (editing VM YAML), potential side effects (e.g., VM restart, configuration changes), authentication needs, error conditions, or rate limits. This lack of detail is inadequate for a tool that modifies resources, leaving critical behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every sentence (in this case, the only one) serves a minimal purpose, earning a high score for efficiency in structure.

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 of editing VM YAML (a mutation with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond calling an endpoint, omitting details like the effect on the VM, expected YAML format, error handling, or return values. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly in 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'Project ID', 'VM YAML data'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'vm_yaml_data' or relationships between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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_vm_yaml endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It does specify a verb ('Call') and resource ('endpoint'), but fails to explain what the endpoint actually does—editing VM YAML configurations—or how it differs from similar tools like 'cldkctl_edit_vm' or 'cldkctl_create_vm_yaml'. This leaves the purpose vague and indistinguishable from siblings.

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. With many sibling tools for VM and YAML operations (e.g., cldkctl_edit_vm, cldkctl_create_vm_yaml, cldkctl_get_vm), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This absence of usage instructions makes it difficult for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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