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 states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns detailed metadata or just basic info, has rate limits, or what the output includes. For a tool with zero 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (4 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameters and usage context, making it incomplete for full agent guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the four parameters (workflow_id, step_id, version, tenant_id), such as their formats, purposes, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Get a specific step in a workflow' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('step in a workflow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, configuration, or status) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_workflow' or 'cdp_list_workflow_steps', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow_id and step_id), when it is appropriate (e.g., for inspecting a step's details), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_list_workflow_steps' for broader queries, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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