CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all clusters). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with infrastructure.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 low complexity (list operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the compute clusters domain (e.g., what 'available' implies) and doesn't address the undocumented parameter, leaving room for improvement.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the schema has one optional parameter (tenant_id) with 0% coverage. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what tenant_id does or when to use it. However, with 0 parameters mentioned, the baseline is 4, but since there is one undocumented parameter, it drops to 3 as the description fails to address it.

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 'List available compute clusters' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available compute clusters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources (like campaigns, users, dashboards), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from other list operations (like cdp_list_tenant_clusters or cdp_list_provision_instances). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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