CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('List UDMP tables') without any behavioral context: no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it might), what format the output takes, or any rate limits or constraints.

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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

While an output schema exists (which helps), the description is inadequate given the context: no annotations, 3 undocumented parameters with 0% schema coverage, and multiple similar list operations among siblings. For a tool with parameters and no annotation safety net, the description should provide more guidance about parameter usage and behavioral characteristics.

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) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters - it doesn't mention any of them, their purposes, or how they affect the listing operation. 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 the resource ('UDMP tables'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the resource type (UDMP tables) from other listable resources in the sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations like 'cdp_list_udmp_resources'.

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. There are many other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., cdp_list_udmp_resources, cdp_list_tables), but no indication of when this specific UDMP table listing is appropriate or what distinguishes it.

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