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 the tool lists compaction requests, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, whether it requires authentication, what happens if tenant_id is null, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics beyond a vague reference. For a read operation with output schema support, it's minimally viable but could better address the parameter's role and tool 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?

The description mentions 'for a tenant', which aligns with the 'tenant_id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some meaning by indicating the parameter's purpose but doesn't explain the parameter's format, optionality (default null), or what happens if omitted. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this is a baseline adequate but incomplete explanation.

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 compaction requests for a tenant' clearly states the action (list) and resource (compaction requests), with a scope qualifier (for a tenant). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_compaction_request' and 'cdp_unschedule_compaction_request' by focusing on listing rather than creating or unscheduling. However, it doesn't specify if it lists all requests or filtered ones, which prevents a perfect score.

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, such as needing a valid tenant ID, or compare it to other list tools like 'cdp_list_tenants' or 'cdp_list_compaction_requests' (if there were multiple variants). There's no explicit when/when-not usage context, leaving the agent to infer based on 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.