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 mentions 'Set or update' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing entries, error conditions, or response format. The existence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description itself lacks behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and key parameters, 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 complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description does not address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning for parameters like cache_type, group, id, value, tenant_id, or expiry_time—it only mentions 'group and ID' generically. This fails to compensate for the complete 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 verb ('Set or update') and resource ('a cache entry'), specifying the mechanism ('by group and ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_cache_put_by_id and cdp_cache_put_by_key by mentioning the group parameter, but does not explicitly contrast them 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_cache_put_by_id or cdp_cache_put_by_key, nor are any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios mentioned. The description only states what it does without indicating appropriate contexts.

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