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 the return code ('Returns 204 on success'), which is helpful, but fails to describe error conditions, side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the action and parameters, and the second provides the success response. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured for its limited content.

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 of a destructive operation with 4 parameters (3 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, error handling, and behavioral context. While an output schema exists (which may cover the 204 response), the description doesn't address the gaps in input understanding or usage guidance, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'group and ID', covering 2 of the 4 parameters (cache_type and tenant_id are omitted). It doesn't explain what 'cache_type', 'group', 'id', or 'tenant_id' represent or their expected formats, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Delete a cache entry') and identifies the required parameters ('by group and ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_id' or 'cdp_cache_delete_by_key', which would require mentioning the specific deletion method (group+ID vs. ID alone vs. key).

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 like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_id' or 'cdp_cache_delete_by_key'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the cache entry must exist or if specific permissions are needed, offering minimal usage direction.

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