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 for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the dispatch ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.

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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that states the core purpose upfront. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 that this is a simple retrieval tool with an output schema (which should document return values) and only two parameters, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter semantics and behavioral context that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The description mentions retrieving by ID, which aligns with the 'dispatch_id' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context beyond what's evident from the parameter name. With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters (dispatch_id and tenant_id), the description fails to explain what a 'dispatch definition' is, what format the ID should be in, or when/why the optional tenant_id parameter might be needed. It doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 dispatch definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_dispatches' by specifying retrieval of a single item by ID rather than listing multiple items. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get' tools in the system.

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, appropriate contexts, or compare with similar tools like 'cdp_get_dispatch' vs 'cdp_list_dispatches' or other retrieval tools in the system. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic purpose statement.

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