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 the tool triggers a workflow action, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects running workflows, or what the output contains. The mention of 'workflow controller' adds some context but lacks operational details like side effects or error conditions.

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 core purpose. Both sentences are relevant: the first states what the tool does, and the second adds context about the workflow controller. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative given the complexity.

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 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or usage context. While the output schema might cover return values, the description fails to address the tool's operational aspects and parameter 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%, meaning none of the three parameters (workflow_id, schedule_id, tenant_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about these parameters—what they represent, format expectations, or how they relate to each other. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented beyond their names and types.

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 ('deactivate') and resource ('a schedule'), specifying that it triggers the schedule's workflow action via the workflow controller. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_activate_schedule by indicating opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other schedule-related tools like cdp_get_schedule or cdp_update_schedule.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when deactivation is appropriate, or what happens after deactivation. It doesn't reference the sibling cdp_activate_schedule for reactivation scenarios or other schedule management tools.

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