CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the cache entry doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second adds useful context about groups. Zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains the core operation and group concept but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps in parameter documentation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'group and ID' which maps to two of the four parameters, but doesn't explain 'cache_type' or 'tenant_id'. It adds some meaning for 'group' ('logically segregate cache keys by source or purpose') but leaves most parameters undocumented.

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' and the resource 'a cached value', specifying it's retrieved 'by group and ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_cache_get_by_id' and 'cdp_cache_get_by_key' by highlighting the group-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_cache_get_by_id' or 'cdp_cache_get_by_key'. The description mentions groups 'logically segregate cache keys by source or purpose', which implies usage context but doesn't provide clear when/when-not rules or named alternatives.

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