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 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the resource and key parameter, but lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral context, or usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but gaps remain.

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 'schedule_id', but doesn't explain what 'schedule_id' is (e.g., integer ID format) or mention 'tenant_id' at all. It 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 schedule by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_schedules' (list vs. get specific), but lacks specificity on the scope of returned information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a schedule ID is known, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it (e.g., for listing all schedules), or compare to siblings like 'cdp_get_schedule' vs. 'cdp_list_schedules' for bulk retrieval.

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