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 fails to do so—it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any error conditions. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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 sentence that is under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space by repeating the tool name without adding useful information. It lacks front-loaded clarity and fails to earn its place, 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?

Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving Kubernetes custom resources) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'custom resources' are, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent unable 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter (e.g., what a project ID is, where to find it, or how it affects the query). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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_get_custom_resources endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'retrieve custom Kubernetes resources') and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_crd' or 'cldkctl_get_resource_v1', leaving the purpose vague.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is critical given many sibling tools (e.g., 'cldkctl_get_crd', 'cldkctl_get_resource_v1') that might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent without direction.

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