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. However, it only states the endpoint call without explaining what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it retrieves sensitive data, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., logging access), or handles errors. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 concise with a single sentence, 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 to convey purpose or usage, resulting in a mediocre balance between length and substance.

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 (involving password retrieval for a registry), no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns, security implications, or how it fits within the registry-related sibling tools. This inadequacy leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly in context.

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 one parameter 'password_data' described as 'Password data'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as what 'password_data' should contain (e.g., registry identifier, credentials) or how it's structured. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately without extra value from 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_show_password endpoint' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name with 'Call the' and 'endpoint' added. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, display, or expose a password for a registry) or what resource it acts upon. While the name suggests showing a password for a registry, the description adds no meaningful clarification, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'cldkctl_registry_detail' or 'cldkctl_registry_list', which might relate to registry operations. Without any usage instructions, an AI agent would lack direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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