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 mentions 'Supports optional search and tenantIds' which gives some operational context, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no tenant is specified. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important parameter context. There's no wasted language, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating parameter explanations.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic operational context but leaves significant gaps. It covers the core purpose and some parameter usage, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or relationships between parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should do more to compensate for the lack of annotations and parameter documentation.

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 documentation. The description adds meaningful context for two parameters ('search' and 'tenantIds'), including format guidance for tenantIds ('comma-separated string'). However, it doesn't address the other three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) or explain their relationships (e.g., tenant_id vs tenant_ids, pagination with offset/limit). The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 roles') and resource ('for a CDP tenant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from other 'list' tools by specifying the resource type (roles), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other role-related tools like 'cdp_get_role' or 'cdp_create_role' beyond the inherent 'list' vs 'get/create' 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 implies usage context by mentioning 'multi-tenant queries' and optional parameters, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or refer to specific sibling tools for different scenarios (like 'cdp_get_role' for single role retrieval).

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