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 states this is a creation tool (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The mention of 'Requires name and expression' hints at validation but lacks detail.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Both sentences add value: the first states the action, and the second provides parameter guidance. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, return values (though output schema exists), and doesn't fully explain parameters, making it inadequate for safe 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 'name and expression (SQL query)' as required, but the schema has parameters 'body' (type string) and 'tenant_id' (optional string/null). The description doesn't explain that 'body' should be a JSON string containing name/expression or clarify the 'tenant_id' parameter's purpose, leaving significant gaps.

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 SQueryDef') and specifies the resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_copy_squery_def' or 'cdp_update_squery_def' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_generate_squery_def' or 'cdp_validate_squery_def', which prevents 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_squery_def' or 'cdp_generate_squery_def'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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