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 states this is a list operation (GET endpoint) and mentions it returns runs and their state, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'orchestration statuses' specifically entail. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation type.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it returns. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List orchestration statuses') and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a paginated list operation.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a list operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details like pagination or scoping. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.

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 descriptions. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'tenant_id', 'offset', or 'limit' mean in the context of listing orchestration statuses, leaving all three parameters undocumented in meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'List orchestration statuses' with the specific resource being 'workflow/connector orchestration runs and their state.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_orchestration_status' or 'cdp_get_orchestration_status_for_connector' beyond implying a list vs. get 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cdp_get_orchestration_status' (which appears to fetch a single status) or 'cdp_get_orchestration_status_for_connector' (which seems connector-specific), nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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