CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'the stored value string and metadata', which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential error cases (e.g., missing keys), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. 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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'cached value' (resource), 'by explicit cache key' (method), and 'Returns...' (outcome). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return format but doesn't explain parameters or behavioral details. However, the existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to document return values. For a simple retrieval tool, it's minimally adequate but lacks parameter guidance.

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 'cache key' but doesn't explain the three parameters (cache_type, cache_key, tenant_id) or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage patterns.

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 ('Get') and resource ('cached value'), specifying retrieval by 'explicit cache key'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_cache_get_by_group' and 'cdp_cache_get_by_id' by emphasizing the key-based approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text.

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_get_by_group' or 'cdp_cache_get_by_id'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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