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 only states 'Call the endpoint,' which implies a read operation but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., project metadata, quotas). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on tautological phrasing ('Call the... endpoint') instead of delivering meaningful content. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity effectively.

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 tool's complexity (likely a read operation for project details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, any behavioral traits, or usage context. The schema covers the parameter, but overall guidance for the agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'ID of the project.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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_project_detail endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It indicates an action ('Call') on a resource ('cldkctl_project_detail endpoint'), but doesn't explain what the endpoint actually does (e.g., retrieve project details). Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_project_list' or 'cldkctl_update_project', it fails to distinguish its specific function.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_project_list' (which likely lists projects) or 'cldkctl_org_detail' (which handles organization details). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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