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 mentions the token is sent via the Authorization header, which is useful, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies token state.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a technical detail (Authorization header). There is no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity of token management, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks output details (though an output schema exists, reducing this gap), behavioral context, and parameter explanations. For a tool that likely involves authentication state changes, more completeness is needed.

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 minimal value by implying the 'token' parameter is a bearer token sent in the Authorization header, but doesn't explain the 'scheme' parameter or its default value 'A1USER'. This partially compensates but leaves key semantics unclear.

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 verb ('Extend') and resource ('expiry of an existing bearer token'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_token' or 'cdp_revoke_token', which would require mentioning alternatives or contrasting use cases.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_create_token' for new tokens, 'cdp_revoke_token' for invalidating tokens). It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing token or typical scenarios for extension.

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