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 mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it's safe or destructive, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal name implication.

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 rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its only sentence on a tautological statement that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage, failing to earn its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without necessary context about behavior, output, or proper invocation.

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%, with the single parameter 'resource' documented as 'Kubernetes resource type' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, valid values, or examples, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does 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_get_resource_v1 endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it actually does. While the name suggests it retrieves Kubernetes resources, the description fails to specify the verb ('get') and resource type clearly, and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like cldkctl_get_pod or cldkctl_get_deployment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about its intended use cases, prerequisites, or how it differs from other get_* tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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