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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the rule ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, it should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral expectations to be truly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'by ID' which relates to the 'rule_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or what the optional 'tenant_id' parameter does. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 DQE Phase 1 rule'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cdp_list_dqe1_rules' by specifying retrieval of a single rule by ID rather than listing multiple rules. However, it doesn't fully explain what a 'DQE Phase 1 rule' is in this 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 implies usage when you need to retrieve a specific rule by its ID, which differentiates it from the list operation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'cdp_get_dqe2_rule' or other rule-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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