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. The description only states it 'calls the endpoint' without explaining what 'stop' does operationally (e.g., halts execution, preserves state, requires permissions, has side effects). For a potentially destructive operation like stopping a notebook, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 at just 6 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Call the endpoint') though the content is minimal. For its limited information content, the structure is efficient.

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 this is a potentially destructive operation (stopping a notebook) with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the contextual information is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what happens when a notebook is stopped, whether data is preserved, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 all three parameters (project_id, name, namespace) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info 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_notebook_stop endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It mentions 'stop' which hints at the action, but doesn't specify what resource is being stopped (a notebook) or what 'stop' means operationally. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_notebook_start' and 'cldkctl_notebook_delete', it doesn't differentiate beyond the obvious verb difference.

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. There are clear sibling tools like 'cldkctl_notebook_start', 'cldkctl_notebook_delete', and 'cldkctl_notebook_update', but the description doesn't indicate when stopping is appropriate versus deleting or starting. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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