CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get details'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., invalid tenant ID), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise—two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter semantics without any fluff. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides crucial parameter context. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation in the schema, the description should ideally address more behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or error handling to be fully complete.

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 description adds meaningful context about the single parameter 'target_tenant_id' by explaining that tenant IDs 'may be numeric, a GUID, or a slug'. This clarifies the expected format beyond what the schema provides (just 'string' type with 0% description coverage). Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 details') and resource ('specific tenant by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_tenants' by specifying retrieval of a single tenant rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' tools that might fetch different resource types.

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 it to similar tools like 'cdp_get_user' or 'cdp_list_tenants'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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