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. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication needs, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific connector definition'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and key parameter.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return value), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks context on authentication, errors, and parameter details. It meets a bare minimum but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID', which hints at the 'connector_def_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what a connector definition is, what format the ID should be (integer as per schema), or the purpose of the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 definition by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from list operations (like 'cdp_list_connector_templates') by specifying retrieval of a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., 'cdp_get_connector', 'cdp_get_connector_versions') beyond the resource name.

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_def_id), contrast with sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connector_templates' for browsing, or specify error conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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