CDP MCP Server

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 mentions that activation 'triggers the schedule's workflow action', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify side effects (e.g., whether this starts immediate execution, changes schedule state, or requires specific permissions). It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or what 'activate' means in this context beyond the high-level mechanism.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Activate a schedule'), followed by a clarifying sentence about the mechanism. There's no redundant information, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be more integrated or omitted if it doesn't add critical value, keeping it slightly from perfect conciseness.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and three parameters (two required), the description is too sparse. It lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, and parameter meanings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent, though the existence of an output schema slightly mitigates this.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (workflow_id, schedule_id, tenant_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how they relate to the activation process. This leaves the agent with only parameter names and types, which is insufficient for informed usage.

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 action ('Activate a schedule') and specifies the mechanism ('triggers the schedule's workflow action via the workflow controller'), which distinguishes it from generic activation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cdp_deactivate_schedule' or other schedule-related tools like 'cdp_get_schedule' or 'cdp_update_schedule', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schedule), conditions for activation, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'cdp_run_workflow' or 'cdp_invoke_workflow_action'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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