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'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the user ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key information.

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 (a simple get-by-ID operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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 clarifies that 'user_id' is the primary identifier, but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide context like ID formats or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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') and resource ('a specific CDP user by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_users' or 'cdp_get_user_lite' by specifying retrieval of a single user via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 like 'cdp_list_users' (for multiple users) or 'cdp_get_user_lite' (for a lighter version). It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as authentication or tenant context. Usage is implied only through the parameter names.

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