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 it's a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (hinted by offset/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'configured' entails. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy 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 (a list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks key context. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should explain more about parameters and behavior to fully guide the agent, but the output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 mentions 'for a tenant', which loosely relates to 'tenant_id', but doesn't explain the optional nature of parameters, what offset/limit do, or their defaults. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all configured connectors for a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_connector_templates' or 'cdp_list_output_connectors', which list related but different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as 'cdp_get_connector' for a single connector or other list tools for different resource types. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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