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 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of returned data. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with parameters and an output schema.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the given content.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or how it differs from siblings. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it does not explain what tenant_id refers to, how offset and limit work for pagination, or default behaviors. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 DQE Phase 2 data quality rules' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('DQE Phase 2 data quality rules'), providing a basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'cdp_list_dqe1_rules' (which lists Phase 1 rules), leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks 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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'cdp_list_dqe1_rules' or 'cdp_get_dqe2_rule', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit instructions.

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