mcp-cloudron

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (control lifecycle), returns 202 Accepted (async operation), provides a task ID, and mentions tracking via cloudron_task_status. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error cases, but gives substantial operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral details (return code and async tracking). Both sentences earn their place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the async nature and task tracking. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly, though it could mention error handling or prerequisites.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (appId and action with enum). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the specific action ('control app lifecycle') and resources ('app'), with explicit verbs (start, stop, restart) in parentheses. It distinguishes from siblings like cloudron_get_app (read-only) and cloudron_install_app (installation rather than lifecycle control).

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 implies usage for app lifecycle control but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like cloudron_get_status (for status checks) or cloudron_task_status (for tracking). It mentions async operation tracking via cloudron_task_status, providing some context but not explicit when/when-not guidance.

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