CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the value is stored as a string and that expiryTime is optional, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'set or update'), permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on conflicts (e.g., overwrites). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, 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 (mutation operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits like side effects or auth needs, and usage context. While the output schema helps, the description doesn't adequately cover the tool's full scope 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 mentions 'Optional expiryTime in seconds', which adds meaning for one parameter (expiry_time). However, it doesn't explain the other four parameters (cache_type, cache_key, value, tenant_id), such as what cache_type represents, how cache_key is formatted, or the role of tenant_id. With 5 parameters and only one partially described, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Set or update a cache entry by explicit key. Value is stored as a string.' It specifies the verb ('set or update'), resource ('cache entry'), and method ('by explicit key'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cdp_cache_put_by_group and cdp_cache_put_by_id by emphasizing 'by key'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_cache_put_by_id, which might also use keys, so it's not fully sibling-distinctive.

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. It mentions 'Optional expiryTime in seconds' but doesn't specify when to use this over other cache tools like cdp_cache_put_by_group or cdp_cache_put_by_id, nor does it indicate prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context.

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