mcp-cloudron

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's an async operation (returns task ID for tracking via cloudron_task_status), involves validation steps, and implies mutation (installation). It could improve by mentioning permissions or rate limits, but it covers critical behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second details validation steps, and third explains async tracking. No wasted words, and it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 (async operation with validation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the installation process, validation dependencies, and async nature, but could benefit from mentioning error handling or response format to fully compensate for missing structured data.

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 already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Install application from Cloudron App Store') and resource ('application'), distinguishing it from siblings like cloudron_configure_app, cloudron_control_app, and cloudron_uninstall_app. It specifies the source ('from Cloudron App Store') and includes pre-flight validation, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 clear context by mentioning pre-flight validation calls to cloudron_validate_manifest and cloudron_check_storage, indicating when to use this tool for app installation with checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like cloudron_configure_app for post-installation adjustments, leaving some guidance gaps.

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