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. It states this is a GET operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or whether it returns full or partial prediction definition data. The HTTP endpoint hint is minimal and doesn't add meaningful operational 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical HTTP endpoint adds technical detail without verbosity, though it could be considered slightly redundant if the tool name already implies a GET operation. No wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more context.

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 likely describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters (one required, one optional with null default), the description is too sparse. It should at least clarify parameter roles and basic usage context to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 mentions 'by ID' which loosely maps to 'prediction_def_id', but doesn't explain what this ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. It doesn't address 'tenant_id' at all, leaving its purpose and handling (nullable default) unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific prediction definition by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_predictions' (which lists multiple) by specifying retrieval of a single item by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'prediction definition' entails in this 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. While the description implies it's for retrieving a specific prediction by ID, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid prediction_def_id), contrast with 'cdp_list_predictions' for browsing, or specify error conditions like handling invalid IDs.

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