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 offers no information about whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The phrase 'Call the endpoint' is generic and adds no meaningful context beyond what's implied by the name.

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 a single, vague sentence that fails to convey useful information. While concise, it's under-specified and lacks structure—there's no front-loading of key details. It doesn't earn its place as it provides minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a generic description, this tool is inadequately documented. For a tool that likely lists notebooks (inferred from name), the description should explain what it returns, any constraints, and how it fits with siblings. The current description is incomplete and unhelpful for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a project ID is or how to obtain it. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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_notebook_list endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with minimal action. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list notebooks, retrieve notebook information) or distinguish it from sibling tools like cldkctl_notebook_create or cldkctl_notebook_delete. While 'list' in the name suggests listing, the description fails to articulate the purpose clearly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context (e.g., for viewing existing notebooks), prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting notebooks). With many sibling tools (e.g., cldkctl_notebook_create, cldkctl_notebook_delete), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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