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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the connector ID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific connector'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and key identifier.

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 low complexity (simple read operation), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, it fails to explain parameter semantics or behavioral context. The output schema existence prevents a lower score, but the description should do more to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'connector_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what a connector ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. It completely ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter (optional string/null), leaving the agent guessing about its purpose and when to provide it. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific connector by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connectors' (which lists multiple connectors) and 'cdp_create_connector' (which creates new ones). However, it doesn't specify what information is retrieved about the connector, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of data returned.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid connector ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing connectors), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connectors' for broader queries. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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