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. It states the tool returns a full definition, which hints at a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a retrieval 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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and then specifying the return content. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly 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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage, and multiple parameters, it lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation despite the output schema support.

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 relates to 'squery_def_id', but does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('SQueryDef by ID'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_squery_defs' (which lists multiple) and 'cdp_create_squery_def' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is not tautological and directly explains the action.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces effectiveness in tool selection.

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