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 states the tool lists items, implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (via offset/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List available connector definitions (templates)'—front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a list operation) but lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral context, or how the output might be structured, leaving the agent under-informed despite the output schema potentially covering return values.

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%, meaning parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as their purposes (e.g., filtering by tenant, pagination controls), expected formats, or default behaviors, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 'List available connector definitions (templates)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('connector definitions/templates'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connectors' or 'cdp_get_connector_template', which might list active connectors or fetch a specific template, leaving the scope vague relative to alternatives.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to siblings like 'cdp_list_connectors' or 'cdp_get_connector_template', leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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