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 'Create a new OAuth client,' implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and lists required parameters. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from parameter details for better readability.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists, mitigating this gap), behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a creation tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description should provide more guidance on parameters, permissions, and outcomes to be adequately complete.

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 lists four required parameters ('client_id_str, client_secret, grants, and token_validity'), adding some meaning beyond the schema's property titles. However, it omits the three optional parameters ('tenant_id', 'authorities', 'scope') and does not explain the purpose, format, or constraints of any parameters (e.g., what 'grants' or 'token_validity' represent), failing to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Create a new OAuth client.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('OAuth client'), making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cdp_create_token' (which also creates OAuth-related resources) or other creation tools, missing sibling differentiation.

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 lists required parameters but does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not specify if this is for administrative use only or how it relates to other client management tools like 'cdp_update_client' or 'cdp_delete_client'.

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