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 describes what the tool returns (field names, types, editability, default page size) and mentions the 'path_style' parameter behavior, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does and its scope, the second provides specific parameter guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose and two parameters. However, it misses the 'tenant_id' parameter and doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'resource_path' parameter with examples (collections vs instances) and provides guidance on 'path_style' for specific resource types. However, it doesn't mention the 'tenant_id' parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('JSON Schema description of any CDP resource'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on schema retrieval rather than data manipulation or other operations. It specifies it works on both collections and instances, making the scope explicit.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to get schema descriptions for CDP resources) and includes a specific usage note about setting 'path_style' for certain resource types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related purposes.

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