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 ('Deprovision'), implying data removal or resource cleanup, but fails to specify critical details like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related resources, or involves rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating key behavioral traits upfront, but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as safety warnings, parameter explanations, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for informed agent decision-making despite the output schema's presence.

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 details. The description mentions 'instance_id' implicitly via the URL path but adds no semantic context for 'instance_id' or 'tenant_id' (e.g., what they represent, format examples, or when tenant_id is optional). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 ('Deprovision') and resource ('a provisioned instance'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_provision_instance' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'cdp_deactivate_provision_instance' by specifying deprovisioning, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'cdp_delete_*' operations.

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 such as 'cdp_deactivate_provision_instance' or 'cdp_delete_provision_instance' (implied by other delete tools). The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for deprovisioning, offering minimal usage direction.

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