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 the tool 'Returns full definition including widgets and layout structure,' which adds value beyond the basic 'get' action by hinting at the return content. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication needs, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or performance characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds valuable return details. Every sentence earns its place with no waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 retrieval), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and hints at return content, but gaps remain: no behavioral transparency, incomplete parameter semantics, and no usage guidelines. It's adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 aligns with the dashboard_id parameter, adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain the tenant_id parameter (its purpose, when it's required vs. optional with default null, or how it affects the query). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description compensates only partially.

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 dashboard by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_list_dashboards (which lists multiple dashboards) by focusing on retrieval of a single dashboard by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools (e.g., cdp_get_widget), though the resource specificity is sufficient.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid dashboard ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like cdp_list_dashboards for browsing or cdp_get_widget for widget details. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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