Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying the type of details returned ('Client ID and OIDC configuration'), which helps the agent understand the output content beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and details without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and output, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what details are retrieved, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more comprehensive by mentioning potential error cases or linking to sibling tools for better context.

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 the two parameters ('projectId' and 'appId'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between them, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific application'), specifying what information is retrieved ('Client ID and OIDC configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zitadel_list_apps' by focusing on a single application, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get tools like 'zitadel_get_project' or 'zitadel_get_user'.

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 when details of a specific application are needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'zitadel_list_apps' for listing applications or 'zitadel_update_app' for modifications). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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