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 this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether this is a mutating/destructive action, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The JSON string requirement is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the critical parameter format requirement. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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 this is a mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, and parameter details needed for safe invocation.

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 'rule as a JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify the JSON structure, required fields, or examples. It completely ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter and its optional nature. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new A360 identity resolution rule'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_a360_rule' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other rule-related tools like 'cdp_get_a360_rule' or 'cdp_list_a360_rules'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose creation over other rule operations like updating or listing. 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.