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 only states it 'calls an endpoint,' offering no information about whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'add'), permissions required, side effects (e.g., adding a user to a registry), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably modifies state.

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, the description is under-specified and fails to convey meaningful information. It consists of a single vague sentence that doesn't front-load key details like the tool's purpose. This isn't effective brevity but rather a lack of content.

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 likely performs a mutation (adding a member), lacks annotations and an output schema, and has a minimal description, it is highly incomplete. The description doesn't cover behavior, usage, or outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear parameter descriptions ('Registry ID' and 'User ID to add'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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_member_add endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't specify the action (adding a member to a registry) or the resource involved (registry membership). Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_registry_member_list' or 'cldkctl_registry_member_delete', it fails to distinguish itself clearly.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a registry and user ID), context (e.g., for managing registry access), or related tools like 'cldkctl_registry_available_member' or 'cldkctl_registry_member_list'. 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.