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 fails to do so, offering no information on whether this is a read or write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The description is minimal and adds no behavioral context beyond 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 sentence, 'Call the cldkctl_org_detail endpoint', which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks essential details like purpose or behavior, making it inefficient in conveying useful information. It's brief but not effectively structured for clarity.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (likely retrieving organization details) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, its behavior, or return values, leaving significant gaps. With no structured data to rely on, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, though it doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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_org_detail endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions an endpoint but provides no information about the action (e.g., retrieve, update) or the resource (e.g., organization details). This fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_org_edit' or 'cldkctl_org_members', leaving the purpose vague.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'cldkctl_superadmin_org_detail' for comparison. This lack of guidance makes it difficult for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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