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. The description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - whether it's a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, what format the response takes, whether there are rate limits, or any side effects. The phrase 'Call the... endpoint' is generic and provides zero behavioral insight beyond what the name already implies.

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 the description is technically concise (one sentence), this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_get_vm_flavor endpoint' adds almost no value and fails to communicate essential information. True conciseness would provide meaningful information in minimal words, but this description is simply too sparse to be helpful.

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 that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides almost no meaningful information, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably retrieves VM flavor information (inferred from the name), the description should explain what VM flavors are, what information is returned, and how this differs from related tools. The current description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to understand when and how to use this 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% (the single parameter 'flavorType_id' has a description in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the input schema. No context about what flavor types are available, how to obtain valid IDs, or what the parameter actually represents is provided in the description.

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_flavor endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional meaning. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve VM flavor details, list available flavors, etc.), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_vm_flavor_type' or 'cldkctl_get_vm'. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource combination that explains the tool's function.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools in the same domain (e.g., 'cldkctl_get_vm_flavor_type', 'cldkctl_get_vm', 'cldkctl_get_vm_gpu'), the agent receives no indication of what problem this specific tool solves or when it should be selected over other 'get' operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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