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 states this is a creation tool (implies mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The mention of JSON string format is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical parameter guidance. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints.

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's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and main parameter requirements but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool and doesn't fully document all parameters.

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 meaningful context: the 'body' parameter should be a JSON string containing name and reportType fields, with reportType having enum values 'CUBE' or 'RELATIONAL'. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide JSON structure examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 report definition') and specifies the resource ('report definition'), which distinguishes it from other creation tools like cdp_create_dashboard or cdp_create_widget. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_copy_report_def (a sibling tool), which would be needed for 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 like cdp_copy_report_def or cdp_update_report_def. It mentions required fields (name and reportType) but doesn't specify prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual triggers for creating a report definition.

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