CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool, implying it's a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body parameter adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly address the tool's function and key parameter requirements. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides essential parameter guidance. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration is present.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and provides some parameter guidance, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and doesn't address all parameters. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain significant.

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 explains that 'body' should be a 'JSON string' containing widget definition with minimum fields 'name and visualizationType', which adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't address the 'tenant_id' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters undocumented. The description provides partial but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new widget'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_copy_widget' or 'cdp_update_widget' by focusing on creation rather than copying or updating. However, it doesn't specify what a 'widget' is in this context, which slightly limits differentiation from other creation tools in the sibling list.

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 mentions required fields ('name and visualizationType at minimum') but doesn't explain when to choose this over 'cdp_copy_widget' for duplication or 'cdp_update_widget' for modifications. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios are provided.

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