CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 only one sentence, front-loading the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It efficiently states what the tool does and the parameter format, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (creation operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral impact, parameter semantics, error handling, and output expectations. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 that 'validator' should be passed as a JSON string, which loosely maps to the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain what a 'validator' entails, its structure, or examples. It ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter entirely. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or requirements.

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 column validator'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_column_validator' and 'cdp_delete_column_validator' by specifying creation. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'column validator' is in this context, which prevents a perfect score.

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, dependencies, or when to choose this over other validator-related tools like 'cdp_update_column_validator' or 'cdp_get_column_validator'. The only usage hint is the parameter format ('JSON string'), which is insufficient for contextual decision-making.

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