CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' (read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'lightweight format' entails (e.g., limited fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and parameter semantics. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the required 'user_id' parameter, but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' (optional, nullable) or provide any format/constraint details. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific user'), specifying it's in 'lightweight format by ID'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'cdp_get_user' by indicating a lighter version, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_list_users_lite' for bulk retrieval.

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 like 'cdp_get_user' (full format) or 'cdp_list_users_lite' (bulk lightweight). The description implies single-user retrieval but lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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