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'). It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, response format (though output schema exists), or whether it's idempotent/safe. For a tool that likely involves sensitive data erasure status, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the status') and efficiently specifies the scope ('of a specific data erasure request by resource ID'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, sensitive data context), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context like parameter details, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 resource ID', which hints at the 'resource_id' parameter but doesn't explain what a resource ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. It completely ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter, leaving its purpose and optionality unclear.

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 ('status of a specific data erasure request'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status' by specifying 'by resource ID', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other data-related tools like 'cdp_get_purge_status' or 'cdp_delete_data_erasure_request', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 an existing erasure request ID), differentiate from 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status' (which might list multiple requests), or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate over others like deletion or status-checking tools.

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