CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation ('Create') but does not specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error handling. The mention of 'JSON string' hints at input format but lacks details on validation or response structure, leaving significant gaps 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and following with parameter details. It avoids redundancy and uses clear language, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter explanations.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description partially compensates by detailing the 'body' parameter. However, it fails to cover 'tenant_id', provide behavioral context, or differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

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 explains that 'body' should be a 'JSON string' with specific fields (name, description, widgets array, layout), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it does not address the 'tenant_id' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters undocumented and reducing overall effectiveness.

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 dashboard') and specifies the resource ('dashboard'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'cdp_update_dashboard' or 'cdp_copy_dashboard'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_clone_resource' or 'cdp_create_widget', which might create ambiguity in a broader context.

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_update_dashboard' for modifications or 'cdp_copy_dashboard' for duplication. It mentions optional fields but lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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