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 this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns cached or real-time data, or what happens if the dataset_def_id doesn't exist. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific datasetDef by ID') and doesn't include unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and is a relatively simple read operation with 2 parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, it should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral expectations. The description meets the bare minimum but doesn't compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which partially explains the 'dataset_def_id' parameter, but doesn't clarify what format the ID should be (integer as per schema) or provide examples. It completely ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter, leaving its purpose and when it's required undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific datasetDef by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_dataset_defs' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than listing multiple items. However, it doesn't fully explain what a 'datasetDef' is or its significance in the CDP context.

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 sibling tools like 'cdp_list_dataset_defs' for browsing datasets or 'cdp_get_dataset_defs' (if it existed) for bulk retrieval. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for fetching a dataset definition.

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