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. It mentions that configuration is passed as a JSON string, which hints at input format, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, given 'create'), what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (a creation tool likely involving configuration and tenant context), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description lacks essential context: what an output connector is, typical configuration, error handling, or links to related tools. It's inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 'body' should be a 'JSON string' for configuration, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain what the JSON structure should contain, what 'tenant_id' is for, or provide examples. With two parameters (one required) and low schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the action ('Create a new output connector') which is clear, but it's vague about what an 'output connector' is or what it does. It doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'cdp_create_connector' or 'cdp_create_output_connector_def', leaving ambiguity about the specific resource being created.

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. With many sibling tools like 'cdp_create_connector' and 'cdp_create_output_connector_def', the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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