CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool that retrieves sensitive OAuth client data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 communicates the core purpose without any 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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context that would help an agent use it correctly, especially for the optional 'tenant_id' parameter.

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 documentation. The description mentions 'by numeric ID' which corresponds to the 'client_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any context about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names.

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 OAuth client by numeric ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_clients' or 'cdp_get_user', but the specificity of 'by numeric ID' provides some implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_list_clients' (for listing all clients) or other 'cdp_get_*' tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over other available options.

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