CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or metadata, or handles errors. For a tool with two parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description's minimalism is partially acceptable. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, it lacks essential context like behavioral traits and parameter details, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'table_id' parameter, but does not explain 'tenant_id' (e.g., its optional nature or purpose) or provide any context on parameter formats or constraints. This leaves half of the parameters inadequately explained.

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 'Get a specific UDMP table by ID' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'UDMP table', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, schema, or data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_udmp_tables' or 'cdp_get_udmp_resources', leaving ambiguity about scope and distinctions.

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, such as needing a valid table ID, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'cdp_list_udmp_tables' for listing tables. This absence of context makes it unclear when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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