CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a GET operation (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the orchestration status entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes the API endpoint. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 an output schema exists (which should describe the return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is too sparse—it doesn't clarify parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits beyond the basic GET operation.

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 descriptions. The description only mentions 'connector' and 'tenantId' in the endpoint path without explaining what these IDs represent, their format, or where to obtain them. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the parameter names.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('orchestration status for a specific connector'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cdp_get_orchestration_status' by specifying 'for a connector' rather than general status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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_get_orchestration_status' or 'cdp_get_connector'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, 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.