CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the role doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.

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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter details, usage context, and behavioral transparency. For a simple read tool, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding.

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 mentions 'by ID', which hints at the 'role_id' parameter, but doesn't explain its format or meaning. It completely ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter, leaving it undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get a specific role by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('role'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'cdp_list_roles' or 'cdp_get_user'. It specifies retrieval by ID, which adds some specificity, but lacks context about what a 'role' entails in this system.

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. With siblings like 'cdp_list_roles' (for listing roles) and 'cdp_get_user' (for user details), the description doesn't indicate this is for retrieving a single role by its identifier, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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