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 that it calls an endpoint, with no information on what the tool does (e.g., mutates data, requires authentication, has side effects like consuming a voucher). This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior, risks, or outcomes.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise—it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose. While structurally simple, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently.

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 (likely a mutation like claiming a voucher), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. The description does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent unable to understand when or how to use the tool effectively.

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 'claim_data' described as 'Claim data'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is 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_voucher_claim endpoint' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name with 'Call' added. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., claim a voucher, redeem a code) or what resource it acts upon. While the name suggests voucher claiming, the description fails to articulate a clear purpose beyond invoking an endpoint.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'cldkctl_voucher_claimed_list' and 'cldkctl_voucher_trial_claimed_list', there is no indication of how this tool differs (e.g., for claiming new vouchers vs. listing claimed ones). The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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