CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it cascades to dependent resources, or what the output contains. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the deletion's impact, parameter meanings, or what to expect in return. The presence of an output schema slightly mitigates the need to describe return values, but the overall context for safe and correct usage is missing.

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 parameter titles ('Connector Def Id', 'Tenant Id') are the only documentation. The description adds no semantic context about what these parameters represent (e.g., that connector_def_id identifies the template to delete, or that tenant_id might be optional for multi-tenant contexts). With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 connector definition' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (connector definition), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_connector' (which deletes a connector instance) and 'cdp_create_connector_template' (which creates one), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation in the text.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid connector_def_id), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools like 'cdp_delete_connector'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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