MCP cldkctl Server

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

The description provides no behavioral information beyond the implied action of 'calling an endpoint'. With no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), it fails to disclose whether this is a read operation, what it returns, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to understand its behavior safely.

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 with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it states the obvious without adding value. While structurally simple, it fails to convey necessary information, making it less helpful 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 incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., OS details for images), its purpose, or usage context. Given the complexity implied by the 'cldkctl' prefix (suggesting cloud/Kubernetes operations) and the lack of structured data, the description fails to provide enough information 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-related information. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as there's no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already indicates.

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_image_os endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It indicates an action ('Call') and a target ('endpoint'), but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves OS information for images). Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_get_vm' or 'cldkctl_get_pod', it doesn't clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the generic 'get' pattern.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios for invocation. Given the sibling tools include many 'get' operations (e.g., for VMs, pods, services), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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