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 fails to indicate that this is a destructive/mutative operation (turning off a VM), doesn't mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., data persistence), or error conditions. It provides no behavioral context beyond the vague 'call the endpoint' phrasing.

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 a single sentence, the description is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. It wastes its limited space on a tautological statement rather than providing meaningful content. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity, making this inefficient rather than appropriately brief.

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's complexity (destructive VM operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. For a mutative tool with behavioral implications, this description provides insufficient context 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 'vm_turn_off_data' documented as 'VM turn off data'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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_turn_off_vm endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., powers off a virtual machine), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'cldkctl_vm_turn_off' or 'cldkctl_reboot_vm'. The description fails to provide a clear, specific purpose beyond the name.

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., VM must be running), exclusions (e.g., not for rebooting), or compare to siblings like 'cldkctl_turn_on_vm' or 'cldkctl_reboot_vm'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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