CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. The HTTP method hint ('GET') is minimal and doesn't add meaningful context beyond the action verb.

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 front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It includes the HTTP endpoint as supplementary detail without cluttering the main message, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks context on permissions, errors, and parameter details, leaving gaps for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 mentions 'instance ID' which maps to the required parameter 'instance_id', but does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter (optional, default null) or provide any semantic context for either parameter (e.g., format, examples, or what 'mapped' means in relation to them). The description 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') and resource ('a mapped provisioned resource') with a specific identifier ('by instance ID'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_provision_instance' by specifying 'mapped', though it could be more explicit about what 'mapped' entails. No tautology or vagueness is present.

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, such as other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'cdp_get_provision_instance' or 'cdp_list_provision_instances'). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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