CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all packages). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it doesn't fully equip an agent for reliable use, keeping it at the baseline of adequacy.

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 description mentions 'for a tenant' which aligns with the 'tenant_id' parameter, adding some context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, with only 1 parameter and low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully explain the parameter's role (e.g., whether it's required, what happens if null, format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal but not comprehensive semantic value.

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 provisioning packages for a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., cdp_list_provision_instances, cdp_list_provision_services), which would require a 5.

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, prerequisites, or context for its application. It's a bare statement of purpose without usage context.

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