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. However, it only states the endpoint call without describing what the tool does (e.g., retrieves persistent volume details), its safety (likely read-only), potential side effects, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral information missing.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space by merely restating the tool name without adding value, failing to front-load useful information. While brief, it does not earn its place with meaningful content.

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 tool's likely complexity (retrieving persistent volumes in a Kubernetes-like environment), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide necessary context such as what data is returned, any filtering options, or error conditions. This inadequately supports an agent in using 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter requirements.

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_persistent_volume endpoint' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does. While the name suggests it retrieves persistent volumes, the description fails to specify the verb ('get' or 'retrieve') and resource ('persistent volumes') clearly, offering no differentiation from siblings like cldkctl_get_pvc or cldkctl_get_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to distinguish it from other get-related tools in the sibling list, such as those for pods, deployments, or services.

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