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 implies a read-only operation via 'List' and the GET method, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'unlinked' means in context. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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. It includes the API endpoint, which adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and key parameters but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'connector class and type' which maps to two required parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics, valid values, or the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. The API endpoint in the description provides some context but lacks detailed parameter 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 action ('List') and resource ('unlinked provisioned instances'), and specifies filtering criteria ('for a connector class and type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_provision_instances' by focusing on 'unlinked' instances. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set beyond this scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the API endpoint but doesn't explain scenarios for listing unlinked instances, prerequisites, or comparisons with related tools like 'cdp_list_provision_instances' or 'cdp_get_provision_instance'.

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