CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List') but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters suggest pagination), error conditions, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive data erasure statuses.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (listing operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details needed for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their semantics, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and usage.

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 ('List') and resource ('data erasure request statuses') with scope ('for a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status_by_id', which appears to fetch a single status by ID rather than listing all.

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 like 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status_by_id' or other data-related tools. The description implies usage for listing statuses but lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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