MCP cldkctl Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'calls the endpoint' without explaining what the update operation does, whether it's destructive, what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is completely inadequate for a tool that appears to perform mutations.

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 the description is technically concise (one sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_registry_update endpoint' doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond what's already in the tool name.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description. The description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the parameters mean beyond basic schema coverage. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and the lack of structured information, this description is severely incomplete.

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 both parameters (registry_id and registry_data) having basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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_update endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated or what 'update' entails. While sibling tools suggest it's related to registry operations, the description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement.

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. With many sibling tools containing 'registry' in their names (like registry_create, registry_detail, registry_list), there's no indication of when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other registry-related operations.

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