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 tool deletes a report definition, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on related schedules or data), or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral traits, parameter details beyond the ID, and usage context, 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 parameters 'report_def_id' and 'tenant_id' are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by ID', which partially explains 'report_def_id' but ignores 'tenant_id' entirely. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the optional tenant parameter.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a report definition by ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdp_copy_report_def' or 'cdp_update_report_def' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'cdp_delete_dashboard').

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing report definition ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'cdp_delete_data_export' or 'cdp_delete_widget', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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