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. It discloses critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive DELETE operation that can leave dangling trigger registrations if not preceded by the unschedule action, specifying affected workflows (AIF_RUNNER, REPORT_RUNNNER_DEFAULT). However, it doesn't mention error handling, response format, or permissions required, leaving some gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed immediately by critical usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational context without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, critical prerequisites, and risks, but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or authentication needs, which are important for a deletion tool.

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. It implies 'schedule_id' is used to identify the schedule to delete, matching the required parameter, but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' or provide any format details. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names suggest, failing to fully address 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a schedule'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cdp_deactivate_schedule' by specifying it's a DELETE operation that removes the schedule entirely. It goes beyond a basic statement by mentioning the API endpoint pattern, which reinforces the purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it instructs to first use 'cdp_invoke_workflow_action' with action='unschedule' to detach the schedule, and warns against using only the DELETE to avoid leaving dangling triggers. This directly addresses when to use this tool and what prerequisite steps are needed.

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