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 but only states it's a read operation ('Get') and returns status information. It lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool that likely queries system state, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the return value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 should document return values), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in understanding behavioral aspects and parameter usage that could hinder effective tool selection.

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, and the description provides no information about the 'tenant_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what happens when tenant_id is null versus specified, or how this affects the scope of cubes returned. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the processing status') and resource ('all OLAP cubes for a tenant'), with specific mention of what's returned ('status of each cube including whether it is ready'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'cdp_get_cube_status_by_names', which appears to be a more targeted version.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'cdp_get_cube_status_by_names', which likely serves a similar purpose with different parameters, but the description doesn't mention this alternative or specify usage contexts like when tenant_id is required.

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