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 'Get connector history / past batch runs', which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by offset/limit parameters), or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves.

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: 'Get connector history / past batch runs for a connector'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It states the purpose clearly but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage context. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not provide enough guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any parameters, such as 'connector_id', 'tenant_id', 'offset', or 'limit', leaving their purposes undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what these parameters do or how they affect the retrieval of connector history.

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: 'Get connector history / past batch runs for a connector'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('connector history / past batch runs'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_connector' or 'cdp_list_connectors', which might retrieve current connector details or lists, respectively.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for historical data only or how it differs from other 'get' or 'list' tools for connectors. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on the name and description alone.

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