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 mentions 'faster response' (a performance trait) and 'fewer fields' (output format), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error conditions. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 users') and immediately adds qualifying details ('in lightweight format') and benefits ('fewer fields, faster response'). There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by conveying 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' and 'why' (lightweight format) but misses parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth), and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify what 'fewer fields' entails. For a tool with undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 3 parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) with 0% description coverage in the schema (titles only). The description provides no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what tenant_id refers to, how offset/limit work for pagination, or their default behaviors. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 users') and specifies the format ('lightweight format') and performance characteristics ('fewer fields, faster response'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings like 'cdp_list_users' by emphasizing the lightweight nature, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'fewer fields, faster response,' suggesting this tool is preferred when speed is prioritized over data completeness. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when full user details are needed) or name alternative tools like 'cdp_list_users' or 'cdp_get_user_lite' from the sibling list. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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