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 for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though not contradictory.

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 without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for brevity in tool descriptions.

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 low complexity (simple retrieval), two parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely defines return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, the lack of behavioral context and incomplete parameter guidance means it doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 aligns with the 'user_id' parameter, adding some semantic value. However, it doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide details like ID format, validation, or default behaviors. With two parameters and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves key gaps.

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 self-service user by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_selfservice_users' by specifying retrieval of a single user rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_get_user' or 'cdp_get_user_lite', which might also fetch user data, leaving slight ambiguity in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with similar tools like 'cdp_get_user' or 'cdp_list_selfservice_users'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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