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. However, it offers no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or any side effects. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the bare endpoint 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified, as it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose and usage. While structurally efficient, it fails to provide sufficient information.

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 description that merely names the endpoint without explaining functionality, the description is incomplete. For a tool that likely retrieves role details (inferred from name and siblings), the description should clarify what 'detail' entails, return format, and behavioral traits, but it does none of this.

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 'role_id' documented as 'Role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. Since schema coverage is high, 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_org_role_detail endpoint' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details about an organizational role), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_org_role_list' or 'cldkctl_org_role_edit'. The description lacks a clear verb and resource specification.

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. The description provides no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from related tools such as 'cldkctl_org_role_list' or 'cldkctl_org_detail'. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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