CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching via a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'connector links' entail. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Fetch connector links') and includes the API endpoint. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing 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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it inadequate for a tool with multiple inputs and potential complexity in a CDP environment.

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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description only mentions 'connectorClass' in the URL example, adding minimal context for the 'connector_class' parameter and none for 'tenant_id'. It fails to explain what connector classes are, valid values, or how tenant_id affects the query, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 states the tool fetches connector links filtered by connector class, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connector_links' (which likely lists all links without filtering) or other list tools, making it somewhat vague about its unique scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions filtering by connector class but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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