MCP cldkctl Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation (implied as a mutation from 'add'), what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies data.

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?

While concise with a single sentence, the description is under-specified and fails to convey useful information. It wastes space by merely repeating the tool name without adding value, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. The structure does not front-load key details.

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 and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for a mutation tool. For a tool with two parameters and no structured context, this description is wholly inadequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('artifact_id' and 'label_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an artifact or label represents in context. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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_registry_artifact_add_label endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, failing to clarify that this tool adds a label to a registry artifact, which is only inferred from the name. No distinction from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_registry_artifact_remove_label' is provided.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other registry-related tools like 'cldkctl_registry_labels_create'. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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