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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates arguments and fills in 'arguments and outputAttributes,' implying a read-only or computational operation, but does not clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are critical for a tool with potential complexity.

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: two sentences that directly state the action, input, and output. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (generating arguments for a SQueryDef), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and output but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall, it's adequate only for minimal understanding.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Pass a SQueryDef JSON with an expression field,' which hints at the 'body' parameter but does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or provide format details (e.g., JSON structure). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving key parameters inadequately described.

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: 'Generate input/output arguments for a SQueryDef from its expression.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('input/output arguments for a SQueryDef'), and transformation ('from its expression'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_validate_squery_def' or 'cdp_get_squery_def', which might have overlapping contexts.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Pass a SQueryDef JSON with an expression field.' It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_validate_squery_def' for validation or 'cdp_create_squery_def' for creation), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear contextual direction.

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