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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated resources, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't replace behavioral context), the description is insufficient. It should address critical aspects like deletion permanence, authorization requirements, and what happens to associated data, especially given the presence of sibling tools that manage related resources.

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?

The description mentions 'numeric ID' which aligns with the client_id parameter, but doesn't explain the tenant_id parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves tenant_id completely unexplained.

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 target resource ('OAuth client by numeric ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like cdp_delete_user or cdp_delete_campaign, but the specificity about OAuth clients provides some implicit distinction.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing specific permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other client-related tools like cdp_create_client or cdp_update_client.

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