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. It discloses that the tool sends an email (a side effect) and requires specific parameters, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens if the username doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by side effects and requirements in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear functionality.

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 low schema coverage, the description does a good job covering the basics: purpose, side effects, and parameter context. However, for a mutation tool that sends emails and likely requires specific permissions, it could benefit from mentioning security implications or error conditions to be fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. While the schema only lists 'username' and 'source' with titles and types (0% description coverage), the description explains that 'username' identifies the user and 'source' can be 'VEGA or CONFIG', clarifying the purpose of these parameters. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints or provide examples.

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 specific action ('Generate a password reset link'), the target resource ('for a user'), and the side effect ('Sends a reset email to the user's registered address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_password' or 'cdp_validate_password_reset' by focusing on link generation and email notification rather than direct password modification or validation.

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 implies usage when a user needs a password reset link sent via email, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_update_password' (for direct password changes) or 'cdp_validate_password_reset' (for validating reset tokens). It mentions required parameters but doesn't provide context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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