MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior: it doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether deactivation is reversible, what happens to the user's access, or what the response looks like. For a tool that likely modifies user status, this lack of information is critical.

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, redundant sentence that wastes space by merely stating it calls an endpoint. It's under-specified rather than concise, failing to convey useful information. While brief, it lacks meaningful structure or front-loading of key details, making it inefficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the context. With no annotations, no output schema, and a tool name suggesting a mutation (deactivation), the description should explain behavioral aspects like effects, permissions, and outcomes. It fails to provide any such context, 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 'user_id' documented as 'User ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the complete schema.

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_member_deactivate endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (deactivate) or resource (organization member) clearly, though the name suggests it. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_org_member_activate' or 'cldkctl_org_member_delete', it fails to differentiate its purpose beyond the obvious from the name.

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. Given siblings like 'cldkctl_org_member_activate' (for activating members) and 'cldkctl_org_member_delete' (for deleting members), the description offers no context on when deactivation is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other member management tools.

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