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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a duplicate, implying a write operation, but does not address permissions, whether the copy inherits settings, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations, making it adequate only for simple contexts.

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, but it only mentions 'widget_id' implicitly ('Copy a widget by ID') and does not explain 'tenant_id' or their formats. Since there are 2 parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the lack of detailed parameter semantics.

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 widget by ID') and the outcome ('Creates a duplicate of the widget'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_widget' (new widget) and 'cdp_update_widget' (modify existing), but does not explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_clone_resource' or other copy tools, which slightly limits its clarity.

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_create_widget' for new widgets or 'cdp_clone_resource' for broader cloning. It also lacks prerequisites, like needing an existing widget ID, which is implied but not stated explicitly.

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