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 but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'delete' but not confirmed), what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or what the output contains. This leaves critical safety and operational details unspecified.

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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place, but the description is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 deletion operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, usage context, or output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain what 'validator_id' or 'tenant_id' represent, their formats, or how they affect the deletion. With two parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 'Delete a column validator' restates the tool name (cdp_delete_column_validator) with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('delete') and resource ('column validator'), but lacks any distinguishing detail about scope, effects, or context that would differentiate it from similar deletion 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tools (e.g., cdp_get_column_validator, cdp_list_column_validators, cdp_create_column_validator, cdp_update_column_validator), leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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