CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simple parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, it should provide more context about parameters and behavioral expectations to be fully helpful.

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%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which correlates with 'rule_id', but doesn't explain what 'tenant_id' is, its purpose, or when it should be provided. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific A360 rule by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'cdp_list_a360_rules' by specifying retrieval of a single rule rather than listing multiple rules. However, it doesn't explain what an 'A360 rule' is, which slightly limits specificity.

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 like 'cdp_list_a360_rules' or 'cdp_update_a360_rule'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The only implied usage is when you have a specific rule ID, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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