MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Call... endpoint') without explaining what the tool does behaviorally—e.g., whether it returns a list or single VM, if it's read-only or has side effects, or any authentication or rate limit considerations. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words, yet fails to convey necessary details, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description. While front-loaded, it lacks substance, so it doesn't earn a higher score for true conciseness.

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 sibling tools (e.g., multiple VM-related tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'get_vm' entails compared to other tools, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role and behavior. This inadequacy could lead to misuse in a rich toolset environment.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it doesn't add any semantic context about implicit parameters or defaults, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.

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_vm endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. While it implies retrieving VM information (from the 'get' prefix), it lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., list of VMs, details of a specific VM, VM status). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'cldkctl_vm_list' or 'cldkctl_vm_detail', 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'cldkctl_vm_list', 'cldkctl_vm_detail', and 'cldkctl_get_vm_flavor', there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering, or output. This absence of context makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct tool without trial and error.

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