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 mentions 'pagination' and 'optional search filter', which are behavioral traits, but lacks critical details: required permissions, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, default pagination behavior, or response format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 purpose ('List all CDP users for a tenant') and adds key features ('with pagination; optional search filter'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a list tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden, but the description should still address permissions or constraints for a complete picture.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some semantics by mentioning 'tenant' (implied by tenant_id), 'pagination' (implied by offset/limit), and 'optional search filter' (mapped to search). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, defaults, or constraints (e.g., search syntax, limit ranges). This partially compensates but doesn't fully cover the 4 parameters.

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 ('CDP users for a tenant'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_user' (single user) and 'cdp_list_users_lite' (lite version) by implying a comprehensive list, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'pagination' and 'optional search filter' adds useful scope but doesn't fully differentiate from all list tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'pagination' and 'optional search filter', which imply usage for browsing or searching users, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., tenant context), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'cdp_list_users_lite'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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