CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination behavior), rate limits, or error conditions. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds valuable domain context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information given the lack of annotations.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains what CubicSetDefs are but doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral traits, or provide sufficient context for safe invocation. The output schema reduces the burden but doesn't compensate for missing parameter and behavioral information.

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 documentation. The description mentions 'for a tenant' which hints at 'tenant_id', but doesn't explain the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) or their purposes. It doesn't clarify whether tenant_id is required, what offset/limit do, or default behaviors.

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 specific action ('List all CubicSetDefs'), identifies the resource ('OLAP query definitions'), and provides domain context ('Saiku-based cube queries used by CUBE-type reports'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_cubic_set_def' (singular retrieval) and 'cdp_copy_cubic_set_def' (copy operation).

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'for a tenant' and the purpose of CubicSetDefs, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_list_cube_metadata' or 'cdp_list_report_defs'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, permissions, or exclusion criteria.

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