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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (offset/limit usage), authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The mention of identifiers is helpful but insufficient for full 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and required parameters; the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.

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 (7 parameters, OLAP-specific) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral traits. With no annotations, it could be more comprehensive, but the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 description must compensate. It lists the four required parameters (cube_id, dimension_id, hierarchy_id, level_name) but doesn't explain their semantics, format, or source. It ignores the optional parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit), leaving them completely undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the 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 action ('Get the values') and target ('for a specific dimension level within an OLAP cube hierarchy'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique OLAP cube data retrieval function, unlike other tools that handle caching, campaigns, or user management.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Requires cube_id, dimension_id, hierarchy_id, and level_name') and provides a clear alternative for discovery ('Use cdp_get_cube_metadata first to discover these identifiers'). This directly guides the agent on prerequisites and sequencing.

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