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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter requirements. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, and parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'workflow_id and job_id' as required, adding some semantic value, but it doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any context on parameter formats, constraints, or examples. With three parameters and low coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific workflow job execution.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow job execution'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_workflow' or 'cdp_get_workflow_step', which are similar retrieval operations.

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 some usage context by stating 'Requires the workflow_id and job_id,' which implies these are mandatory parameters. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_get_workflow' for workflow details or 'cdp_list_workflows' for listing workflows), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or tenant context.

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