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 mentions the cache key generation behavior, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling (e.g., if ID not found), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. For a cache retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about key generation. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and key generation behavior, but lacks parameter explanations, error handling, and other context needed for reliable use. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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 mentions 'ID' and 'query parameters' (the latter not in schema), but doesn't explain the three actual parameters (cache_type, id, tenant_id). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, failing to clarify what cache_type represents, what format id should be, or when tenant_id is needed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a cached value by ID' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_cache_get_by_key' and 'cdp_cache_get_by_group' by specifying the lookup method (ID-based). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 implies usage context through 'The cache key is auto-generated using the ID and any query parameters,' suggesting this is for retrieving cached data when you have an ID. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other cache retrieval methods (by_key, by_group) or when not to use it (e.g., for uncached data).

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