Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying it retrieves details for the 'current organization' based on a configuration, which is useful context not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, keeping it at a baseline 3.

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 information ('Get details of the current organization') and adds necessary context ('based on the configured ZITADEL_ORG_ID'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 the tool has 0 parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the context (current organization based on config). However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the return type (e.g., 'details' like name, ID) since there's no output schema, preventing a perfect 5.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary information. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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 ('current organization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'zitadel_get_user' or 'zitadel_get_project' by specifying it retrieves organization details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'zitadel_list_users'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 stating it retrieves 'current organization (based on the configured ZITADEL_ORG_ID)', which implies when to use it—when you need details for the pre-configured organization. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., for other organizations), so it falls short of a 5.

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