CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'paged' (implying pagination) but fails to disclose critical details like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying key information like pagination.

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, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. While the output schema may cover return values, the description does not provide enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit), such as their purposes, formats, or constraints. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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') and resource ('available provision services for a tenant'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_provision_instances' by specifying 'services' rather than 'instances', though it could be more explicit about the distinction. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

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 minimal guidance, mentioning 'for a tenant' and 'paged', but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not clarify when to choose this over similar list tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_provision_instances') or address edge cases like tenant selection.

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