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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action ('Get'), implying a read operation, but fails to detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'schema checkpoints' entail. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get schema checkpoints for a tenant.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameter, the nature of 'schema checkpoints,' or behavioral traits. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively in isolation.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (tenant_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention this parameter at all, offering no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's role and usage.

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 schema checkpoints for a tenant' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('schema checkpoints for a tenant'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'schema checkpoints' are or how this differs from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., cdp_get_audience_def, cdp_get_campaign), leaving room for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., cdp_get_tenant, cdp_get_workflow), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what it does without helping the agent decide when it's appropriate.

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