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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some context about the generic controller and filters, but overall behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses two sentences efficiently: one for the main action and one for parameter context. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters).

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error cases, and output structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and constraints would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It effectively explains the semantics of parameters: resource_type defaults to 'statusmessage' and the controller is generic, and lists filters (event_type, entity_type, entity_id, workflow_id). However, it doesn't cover tenant_id or provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions, leaving some 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 tool's purpose: 'Get status messages for a workflow/entity event' with specific resource and filter details. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status messages rather than other CDP entities like campaigns, users, or workflows, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar 'get' tools like cdp_get_workflow_job or cdp_get_orchestration_status.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'workflow/entity event' and filters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that resource_type defaults to 'statusmessage' and the controller is generic, suggesting flexibility, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other status-related tools.

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