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 implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to grasp quickly with zero waste.

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 (one parameter, read-only implied), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the output schema.

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 input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. Since there is only one parameter and the schema provides basic structure (title 'Tenant Id'), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no value beyond the schema but the schema itself is minimal.

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 ('clusters assigned to the current tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_clusters' or 'cdp_list_tenant_clusters' (if they exist in context), which slightly limits its 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'cdp_list_clusters'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, offering only a basic statement of function without usage direction.

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