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. It fails to mention that this is a destructive operation (rebooting a VM causes downtime), whether it requires specific permissions, what the reboot behavior entails (e.g., graceful vs. forced), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 only one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes its single sentence on a tautological statement ('Call the... endpoint') instead of conveying useful information. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.

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 of rebooting a VM (a destructive operation), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that adds almost no value beyond the tool name, this is highly incomplete. The description fails to address critical context like safety, permissions, behavior, or output expectations, making it inadequate for the tool's purpose.

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 'vm_id' clearly documented in the schema as 'ID of the VM to reboot'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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_vm_reboot endpoint' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful purpose. It mentions 'reboot' but doesn't specify what resource is being rebooted (a VM), which is only clear from the tool name itself. Compared to siblings like 'cldkctl_vm_turn_off' and 'cldkctl_vm_turn_on', it doesn't distinguish its specific action beyond the obvious.

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), when not to use it (e.g., during critical operations), or how it differs from similar tools like 'cldkctl_reboot_vm' (which appears to be a sibling based on the 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.