CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Kill' implies a destructive, irreversible action that terminates execution, but the description doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention permissions required, side effects, or what happens to job data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't replace description), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, usage guidelines, and doesn't address the tool's impact or requirements, leaving the agent poorly equipped to 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the name (workflow_id and job_id). It doesn't explain the optional tenant_id parameter or provide format/context for any parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Kill a running workflow job' clearly states the action (kill) and target (running workflow job). It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_suspend_job (which pauses rather than terminates) and cdp_rerun_job (which restarts). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the destructive nature or that it terminates execution, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 like cdp_suspend_job (pause) or cdp_rerun_job (restart). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be running) or consequences (e.g., irreversible termination). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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