CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful return value context without redundancy. It's efficiently structured but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral disclosure and incomplete parameter semantics leaves gaps. It meets basic requirements but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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. It mentions 'by ID', which clarifies the purpose of 'report_def_id', but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' or provide format/constraint details. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap, warranting a baseline score.

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 ('report definition by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_report_defs' (which lists) and 'cdp_create_report_def' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or direct comparisons with sibling tools like 'cdp_list_report_defs' for browsing or 'cdp_copy_report_def' for duplication. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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