CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on related resources), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, and output expectations to be adequate for safe use by an agent.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name (e.g., 'rule_id' is needed). It doesn't explain the purpose of 'tenant_id' or its default behavior, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an A360 rule'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_a360_rule' and 'cdp_update_a360_rule' by specifying the destructive operation. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'A360 rule' entails beyond the name, keeping it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), when not to use it (e.g., if the rule is active), or explicit alternatives like 'cdp_deactivate_schedule' for similar operations. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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