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. It discloses that this creates a new schedule row (implying a write/mutation operation) and provides important behavioral context: the canonical shape of the body JSON, the source (ui-core ScheduleService.save), and the required follow-up action. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but gives substantial operational guidance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes a lengthy JSON example that could be more concise. While the JSON details are valuable given the 0% schema coverage, the structure could be improved by separating the canonical shape into a more digestible format. Every sentence earns its place, but the presentation is dense.

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 (creation tool with detailed JSON structure), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides the exact parameter structure with examples, specifies required follow-up actions, and references the source. The output schema will handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage and input semantics.

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 fully. It provides extensive parameter semantics: body is a JSON string with detailed canonical shape including field names, types, enums, examples, and optional fields. It also clarifies tenant_id is optional with null default. This goes far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 schedule row') and target resource ('in config/schedules'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cdp_update_schedule or cdp_get_schedule, though the 'create' verb inherently suggests it's for new schedules rather than modifying existing ones.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after creating a schedule, call cdp_invoke_workflow_action with action='schedule' and the returned scheduleId to arm it. This gives clear post-creation steps and distinguishes it from tools that might activate or manage schedules differently.

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