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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not confirmed), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 helps), no annotations, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a mapping template is, the return format, or error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters (one required, one optional with null default), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 but adds minimal value. It mentions 'by ID' which relates to the 'template_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or provide context like ID format, optionality, or default behavior. This fails to adequately supplement the undocumented 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 'Get a specific mapping template by ID' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (mapping template), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mapping_template' vs 'cdp_list_mapping_templates'. It specifies 'by ID' which adds some specificity, but remains basic without explaining what a mapping template is or its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid template ID, or contrast it with related tools like 'cdp_list_mapping_templates' for browsing or 'cdp_create_mapping_template' for creation. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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