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 minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and a parameter effect ('provisioningAllowed' flag), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds parameter guidance. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter notes).

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it only explains one parameter's effect. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in the description. For a read tool with moderate complexity, it's minimally adequate but lacks comprehensive context.

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 documentation. The description adds value by explaining the 'validate' parameter's effect (includes 'provisioningAllowed' flag), but doesn't clarify 'service_id' or 'tenant_id' semantics. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves two parameters unexplained.

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 ('provisioning limit for a specific service'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_provision_limits' by specifying retrieval for a single service rather than listing all limits. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'cdp_get_provision_service' or 'cdp_get_provision_instance', which might retrieve related provisioning data.

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. It mentions a 'validate' parameter effect but doesn't explain when to set it true/false or compare with sibling tools like 'cdp_list_provision_limits' for bulk retrieval. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for tool selection are given.

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