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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all steps', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it includes archived steps). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 steps') and specifies the resource ('in a workflow DAG'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits. The output schema mitigates some completeness issues, but the description alone is insufficient for full understanding without additional structured data.

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 3 parameters (workflow_id, version, tenant_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what a workflow_id is, how version affects the listing (e.g., defaulting to latest), or when tenant_id is needed. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely 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 verb ('List') and resource ('steps (nodes) in a workflow DAG'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdp_list_workflows' or 'cdp_list_workflow_edges' by focusing on steps within a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_get_workflow_step' (singular), which might retrieve a single step, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid workflow_id), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'cdp_list_workflow_step_types' or 'cdp_get_workflow_step'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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