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 read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'all' encompasses (e.g., active vs. inactive). This is inadequate for a tool with three 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 three parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't excuse the description), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., pagination, permissions), and doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values. This is insufficient for effective tool 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%, meaning none of the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what tenant_id refers to, how offset/limit work for pagination, or default behaviors. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('all report definitions for a tenant'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_report_def' (singular retrieval) or 'cdp_copy_report_def' (copy operation), which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for listing vs. getting individual definitions, or exclusions (e.g., whether it includes archived definitions). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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