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. It effectively discloses that this is a mutation tool (e.g., 'schedule', 'publish', 'run') and provides context on parameter dependencies (e.g., 'Requires schedule_id' for schedule actions, 'Requires entity_type='connector' + entity_id' for publish). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects, which are important for a generic mutation tool with 8 parameters.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, immediately contrasts with a sibling tool, lists common verbs with bullet points for readability, and ends with a note on the 'body' parameter. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's role, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects). The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but some gaps remain for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description compensates excellently by explaining the semantics of key parameters: it clarifies that 'body' is an 'optional JSON string for workflows that need a payload,' and it ties parameters like 'schedule_id', 'entity_type', and 'entity_id' to specific actions (e.g., 'schedule' requires schedule_id, 'publish' requires entity_type and entity_id). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'invoke[s] an arbitrary action on a workflow' and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling 'cdp_run_workflow' by noting this is a 'generic escape hatch for action verbs that cdp_run_workflow does not support.' It provides specific examples of common verbs (e.g., 'schedule', 'publish'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states to use this for actions not supported by 'cdp_run_workflow' (which only sends action=run) and mentions specific sibling tools ('cdp_activate_schedule', 'cdp_deactivate_schedule') as alternatives for certain actions. It also lists common use cases with required parameters, offering clear context for selection.

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