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 this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get') and key constraint ('by ID'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for missing context like parameter meanings, error cases, or usage distinctions from siblings. It meets the bare minimum but leaves the agent to rely heavily on structured fields.

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 'customization_id', but doesn't explain what this ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. It ignores 'tenant_id' entirely, leaving its purpose and default behavior (nullable with default null) unexplained. The description adds minimal 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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific summary customization'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_summary_customizations' (which likely lists multiple) or explain what a 'summary customization' is in this context. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain or what the customization entails.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing customization ID), compare it to 'cdp_list_summary_customizations' for browsing, or specify error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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