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. It mentions the action ('Delete') and success response ('Returns 204 on success'), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions required, whether the deletion is irreversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 directly state the purpose and outcome. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse 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 complexity as a destructive operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns 204'), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'cache_type', 'cache_key', or 'tenant_id' represent, their formats, or examples. With 3 parameters and no semantic details, this is inadequate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a cache entry'), specifying it's done 'by explicit key'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_group' and 'cdp_cache_delete_by_id' by mentioning the key-based approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text, keeping it from 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_cache_delete_by_group' or 'cdp_cache_delete_by_id'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the exact cache key, or any exclusions. It merely states what it does without usage instructions.

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