CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (list operation, 1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter nuances, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add details like parameter format, optionality (it's optional with default null), or semantics beyond the basic tenant scope. With one parameter and low schema coverage, it provides minimal but not substantial additional meaning.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all self-service users for a tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_users' by specifying 'self-service' users, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them in the description text itself.

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 like 'cdp_list_users' or 'cdp_get_selfservice_user'. It mentions a tenant scope but doesn't explain prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selection.

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