MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'calls an endpoint' without indicating this is a creation/mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a tool that creates resources with no annotation coverage, this is completely 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?

While technically concise with one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its single sentence on a tautological statement that provides no useful information about the tool's purpose or behavior.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a registry is in this context, what data is expected, what happens after creation, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'registry_data' documented as 'Registry data'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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_create endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (a container registry), what the action entails, or how it differs from sibling registry tools like cldkctl_registry_update or cldkctl_registry_detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools related to registries (e.g., cldkctl_registry_update, cldkctl_registry_list, cldkctl_registry_detail), but the description doesn't indicate this is for initial creation versus modification, listing, or other operations.

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