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 the tool creates a duplicate, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether the copy includes all dependencies, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the purpose and outcome, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, 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 has an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, which are crucial for a mutation tool with undocumented inputs.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the parameters, such as what 'report_def_id' refers to or the purpose of 'tenant_id'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 ('Copy a report definition by ID') and the outcome ('Creates a duplicate of the report'), which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cdp_clone_resource or cdp_copy_dashboard, which might have overlapping purposes in copying resources.

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, such as cdp_clone_resource or other copy-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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