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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the instance doesn't exist. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low parameter complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that presumably retrieves important infrastructure objects, it should provide more context about what a 'provisioned instance' represents and the significance of the optional tenant_id parameter.

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?

The description mentions retrieving by 'ID', which aligns with the 'instance_id' parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage and two parameters (instance_id and tenant_id), the description doesn't explain what a 'provisioned instance' is, what format the ID should be, or when/why to use the optional tenant_id parameter. The baseline is 3 since the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific provisioned instance by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_provision_instances' or 'cdp_get_mapped_provision_instance', but the specificity of 'by ID' provides some implicit distinction.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from related tools like 'cdp_list_provision_instances' (for listing) or 'cdp_get_mapped_provision_instance' (for mapped instances).

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