CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (hinted by offset/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential action and resource. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or behavioral context. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to address input semantics and usage nuances, leaving critical gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'tenant_id', 'offset', or 'limit' mean, their formats, defaults, or how they affect the listing. For a tool with 3 parameters and low schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action ('List all configured') and resource ('output connectors for a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_output_connector_defs' or 'cdp_get_output_connector', which list definitions or get a single connector respectively, leaving room for ambiguity in 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_list_output_connector_defs' for definitions or 'cdp_get_output_connector' for a single connector. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, offering minimal usage direction.

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