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 indicates a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with a provisioning system, this omission is significant, leaving the agent without crucial 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 ('Get a specific provision service by ID or name') and includes the API endpoint in parentheses for additional context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is limited, especially for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools.

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 adds minimal value by implying 'service_id_or_name' can be either an ID or name, but it doesn't explain the format, constraints, or purpose of 'tenant_id' (which is optional). For a tool with 2 parameters, this leaves most semantics undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('a specific provision service'), specifying it can be retrieved by 'ID or name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_provision_services' by focusing on a single service rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'cdp_get_provision_instance'), leaving some ambiguity.

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. The description mentions retrieving by 'ID or name' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication), error conditions, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'cdp_get_provision_instance'. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide appropriately.

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