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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action is a POST request, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether provisioning is reversible, rate limits, expected response format, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter format. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. However, the 'etc.' could be more precise to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 has an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and complete parameter documentation. For a creation tool in a complex system, this leaves important gaps.

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 'request body as JSON string with serviceId, provisionName, etc.' which adds some meaning for the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter at all. The 'etc.' is vague and doesn't provide complete parameter documentation, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Provision a new instance') and specifies the resource ('instance'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_provision_instance' (read) and 'cdp_update_provision_instance' (update), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other provisioning tools like 'cdp_deprovision_instance' or 'cdp_retry_provision_instance'.

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, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like 'cdp_retry_provision_instance' or 'cdp_update_provision_instance'. The only implied context is the HTTP method (POST), which is insufficient for usage decisions.

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