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 the tool returns 'the full definition including the model (Saiku query JSON)', which adds useful context about the output content. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, retrieval operation), the description is minimally adequate. It benefits from having an output schema (which reduces the need to detail return values) but suffers from no annotations and low parameter schema coverage. The description covers the basic purpose and output content but lacks guidance, behavioral context, and full parameter semantics, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'cubic_set_def_id' parameter, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide details on ID format, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage (0%), the description partially compensates but falls short of fully clarifying both parameters, warranting a baseline score.

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 ('CubicSetDef by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_cubic_set_defs' (which lists multiple) by focusing on retrieval of a single item by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'cdp_get_cube_status'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'cdp_list_cubic_set_defs' for browsing or 'cdp_copy_cubic_set_def' for duplication. Usage is implied only by the action 'Get', with no explicit context or constraints provided.

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