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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying a read-only action, but fails to mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation type.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the key action ('Get'). It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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's low complexity (simple retrieval), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder correct usage despite the output schema covering return values.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID', which hints at the 'group_id' parameter, but does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter (its purpose, when it's required, or default behavior). It adds some meaning for one parameter but leaves the other unexplained, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 execution summary group by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_execution_summary_groups' (which lists groups) by specifying retrieval of a single group via ID, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling for comparison.

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 like 'cdp_list_execution_summary_groups' or 'cdp_get_execution_bucket', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or tenant context. Usage is implied by the need to fetch a specific group, but explicit alternatives or exclusions are absent.

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