MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is likely a mutation operation (creating a session), what authentication method it uses, whether it returns a token or session ID, any rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal action 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 technically concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes the opportunity to convey purpose or usage in favor of a minimal statement that adds little value. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information for a critical operation like login.

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 login tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (token, session, status), authentication requirements, security implications, or how it fits into the broader authentication flow with sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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%, with both parameters ('username' and 'password') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details 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_login endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added value. It doesn't specify what the login operation actually does (e.g., authenticates a user, obtains a session token), nor does it distinguish this tool from the 'auth' or 'cldkctl_auth' sibling tools. While it includes a verb ('Call'), it lacks specificity about the resource or outcome.

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 like 'auth' or 'cldkctl_auth'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., initial authentication flow), or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.

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