MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns (e.g., GPU types, counts, availability), potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tautological statement.

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 one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its single sentence on a tautology ('Call the...endpoint') that provides no actionable information, failing to front-load useful details. This is brevity at the expense of clarity, not effective 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that merely restates the name, this is completely inadequate for a tool that likely retrieves GPU-related VM data. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the parameter schema.

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 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter (e.g., format, where to find it, scope). Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.

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_gpu endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with 'Call the' and 'endpoint' added. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve GPU information for VMs), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_get_vm' or 'cldkctl_get_vm_flavor'. The purpose remains vague beyond being an API call.

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 prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., whether this is for GPU-specific VM details vs. general VM info). Usage is completely unspecified.

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