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. It only states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core operation but lacks context about DQE Phase 2 rules, authentication, or error handling that would help an agent use it effectively in real scenarios.

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 documentation. The description mentions 'by ID' which implies the 'rule_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any format/validation details. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names alone.

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') and target resource ('a specific DQE Phase 2 rule by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_dqe1_rule' or 'cdp_list_dqe2_rules', which would require mentioning the specific rule type or contrasting with list operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate compared to list operations, or any context about DQE Phase 2 rules that would help an agent decide. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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