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 discloses the tool's behavior by describing two authentication methods and what they fetch, but it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it), what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned token information. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first three words, followed by a clear explanation of the two usage modes in a single sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 context: no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, 4 parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth. It covers the tool's purpose and two authentication methods, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like security requirements, error handling, or parameter interactions. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but other gaps remain for a tool with no annotation 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics by explaining that 'token' is for bearer token authentication and 'username/password' for Basic auth, and implies 'scheme' might relate to authentication (default 'A1USER'). However, it doesn't cover all four parameters comprehensively (e.g., the purpose of 'scheme' beyond the default, or how parameters interact). It compensates partially but not fully for the low schema coverage.

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 token information.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('token information'), and distinguishes between two authentication methods (bearer token vs. username/password). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_token' or 'cdp_revoke_token' beyond the 'Get' action, which is implied but not stated.

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 implied usage guidance by explaining two authentication scenarios (bearer token for specific token info, username/password for user's token). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_create_token' for creating tokens or 'cdp_login' for authentication), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context.

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