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 the default return fields (id, name, editedby, editeddate), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. 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 action ('List all accessible widgets for a tenant') and adds useful detail about default return fields. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral details. The output schema likely documents return values, reducing the burden, but key operational context is missing.

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 'tenant' but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter's purpose, format, or default behavior. It ignores 'offset' and 'limit' entirely, leaving pagination undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 ('all accessible widgets for a tenant'), specifying the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_widget' (singular retrieval) and 'cdp_copy_widget' (copy operation), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_get_widget' (for single widget details) or 'cdp_list_dashboards' (for related resources). The description implies usage for listing widgets but offers no context about prerequisites, tenant selection, or pagination strategies.

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