CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that credentials are sent via Authorization header and returns token details (access_token, token_type, expires_in), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or whether this invalidates existing tokens. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided), but it's incomplete for a security-sensitive operation.

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 highly concise with three sentences that efficiently cover authentication method, credential transmission, and return values. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. No wasted words or structural issues.

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's complexity (authentication/token creation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core operation and return values, though it lacks details on error handling, security implications, or parameter specifics. The output schema likely documents return structure, reducing burden on the description.

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 'Basic authentication' and 'Credentials', implying username and password parameters, but doesn't explain the optional 'scheme' parameter or its default value 'A1USER'. The description adds some meaning by linking parameters to authentication context, but fails to fully document all three parameters, leaving 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 tool creates an access token using Basic authentication, specifying the verb 'Create' and resource 'access token'. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_get_token (retrieval) and cdp_extend_token (extension), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from cdp_login (authentication-related) without explicit comparison.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_login, cdp_extend_token, or cdp_revoke_token is provided. The description mentions Basic authentication but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., valid credentials) or exclusions (e.g., when a token already exists). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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