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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Requires name' as a constraint and hints at data format ('JSON string', 'serialized Saiku JSON string'), but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the output schema returns. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies input format and requirements, and the third clarifies a field detail. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers key aspects of 'body' but omits 'tenant_id' and lacks behavioral context like error handling or permissions. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for a creation tool.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'body' should be a 'JSON string' containing the definition, with 'name' required and 'model' as a 'serialized Saiku JSON string'. However, it doesn't explain 'tenant_id' (the second parameter) or provide examples of the JSON structure, leaving partial gaps.

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 a new CubicSetDef') and specifies the resource being created. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_copy_cubic_set_def' by focusing on creation rather than copying, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'cdp_create_dashboard' or 'cdp_create_report_def' to explain what makes a CubicSetDef unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for creation, or compare it to similar tools like 'cdp_create_datasetdef' or 'cdp_create_squery_def'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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