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 states the action is a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't mention critical details like whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting associated connectors), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 is a deletion operation (complex mutation) with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks necessary context like behavioral risks, parameter meanings, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters (connector_def_id and tenant_id), such as what they represent, where to find them, or how tenant_id affects the operation (e.g., defaulting to null). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('an output connector definition'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't specify what an 'output connector definition' is or how it differs from similar tools like 'cdp_delete_output_connector' (which deletes the connector itself rather than its definition), making it somewhat vague compared to siblings.

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 (e.g., 'cdp_delete_output_connector' or other deletion tools in the sibling list). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the definition must be inactive or if there are dependencies to check, offering no usage instructions.

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