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 offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on linked widgets), confirmation steps, or error handling. This is inadequate for a destructive operation 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word ('Delete', 'dashboard', 'by ID') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: no behavioral details, minimal parameter guidance, and no mention of output or error cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'by ID' for dashboard_id, ignoring tenant_id. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names, failing to explain parameter purposes (e.g., tenant_id for multi-tenant contexts). Baseline 3 is given as schema coverage is low but description doesn't adequately fill gaps.

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 dashboard by ID' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (dashboard), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cdp_update_dashboard or cdp_copy_dashboard by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete operations (e.g., cdp_delete_widget).

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 (e.g., needing dashboard existence), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like cdp_list_dashboards for ID discovery or cdp_delete_widget for related deletions.

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