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 offers little behavioral insight. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'prediction result' entails. The mention of 'other query params' is vague and unhelpful for understanding 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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about optional parameters is somewhat vague ('other query params' adds little value). Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity but could be more precise.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and sibling differentiation. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 'container_code' (implied required) and 'pid' as optional, but doesn't explain what a container code is, format expectations, or what 'other query params' might be. The two other parameters (tenant_id, pid) lack meaningful context beyond their 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 ('prediction result'), specifying it's retrieved 'by container code'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_prediction' (which likely retrieves by prediction ID) by focusing on container-based retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar 'get' tools in the extensive sibling list.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions optional parameters like 'pid (person ID) and other query params', but gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_get_prediction' or 'cdp_list_predictions'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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