CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive action ('Cancel/delete') but fails to specify critical details such as required permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. 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 wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of a deletion tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation 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 the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters ('body' and 'tenant_id'). The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their formats, or how they affect the operation. For example, it doesn't explain what 'body' should contain or when 'tenant_id' is required, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 ('Cancel/delete') and resource ('a pending data erasure request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_data_erasure_request' or 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status', which handle modification and status checks of similar resources.

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., that a pending request must exist), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_request_data_erasure' for creation or 'cdp_update_data_erasure_request' for modifications, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.

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