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. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what the output format is (e.g., log streams, structured data), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The vague 'Call... endpoint' adds no value beyond the tool 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?

While concise with one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on a tautological statement ('Call... endpoint') that doesn't convey purpose or usage. A truly concise description would front-load essential information, which this lacks entirely.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving registry logs) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, its behavior, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools. For a tool that might involve log retrieval or analysis, this leaves critical gaps.

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 'registry_id' documented as 'Registry ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, source, or examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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_registry_logs endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., retrieve, stream, or analyze logs) or the resource (registry logs), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like cldkctl_registry_detail or cldkctl_registry_list. This provides no meaningful guidance to an agent.

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 doesn't mention context (e.g., debugging, monitoring), prerequisites (e.g., registry access), or exclusions (e.g., not for audit logs). With many sibling tools (e.g., cldkctl_audit_log, cldkctl_registry_detail), this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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