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 of behavioral disclosure. It states a list operation but does not describe key traits like whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 without unnecessary details. It uses clear language and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately sized for its informational content.

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 (a list operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on pagination, tenant context, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective use without external knowledge.

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 parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'for a tenant', loosely relating to tenant_id but not explaining its purpose, format, or optionality. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, especially for offset and limit which are common pagination parameters but unaddressed.

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') and resource ('SQueryDefs (SQL query definitions) for a tenant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'cdp_list_cubic_set_defs' or 'cdp_list_report_defs', which follow similar patterns but target different resources, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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, such as other list tools for different resources or more specific query tools. It mentions 'for a tenant' but does not clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like 'cdp_get_squery_def' for individual retrieval, leaving usage context implied at best.

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