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 this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the workflow ID doesn't exist. The optional version parameter hints at versioning behavior, but this isn't elaborated.

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 at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial optional functionality. Every element earns its place, 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 that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description's main gaps are in parameter semantics and behavioral context. For a simple read operation with three parameters (one required), the description covers the basic purpose but misses important details about parameter usage and system behavior that would help the agent use it correctly.

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 only mentions the workflow_id and version parameters, ignoring tenant_id entirely. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workflow ID, how version numbering works, or when tenant_id should be specified, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 workflow by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this from list-style operations by specifying retrieval of a single item, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' siblings like cdp_get_workflow_job or cdp_get_workflow_step.

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 sibling tools like cdp_list_workflows for browsing or cdp_get_workflow_job for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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