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 this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return content ('full definition including reportDef and visualization settings'), which is helpful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid widget ID), rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get a widget by ID' establishes the action, and 'Returns full definition...' adds necessary output context without redundancy. No wasted words or structural issues.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read operation), the description covers the essential purpose and output content. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more behavioral and parameter guidance to be fully complete for safe agent 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID' which clarifies the purpose of 'widget_id', but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' at all. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names, failing to fully compensate for the schema coverage gap. With 2 parameters (one required), the description should do more to explain their roles.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('widget by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_widgets' by specifying retrieval of a single widget rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations like 'cdp_get_dashboard' or 'cdp_get_report_def' beyond the widget focus.

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., needing a valid widget ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing widgets), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_list_widgets' for broader queries. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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