CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication method (Basic auth), the output (bearer token with details), and the optional tenant scoping. However, it doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, session management, or whether this invalidates previous tokens. For a security-sensitive authentication tool, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by optional parameter context and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient while remaining complete.

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 that this is an authentication tool with no annotations, 3 parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description does well by covering the authentication mechanism, optional parameter context, and output summary. However, for a security-critical operation, it should ideally mention authentication prerequisites, error handling, or token lifecycle details to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions 'tenant_name' and explains its purpose ('to scope the login'), adding valuable semantic context beyond the bare parameter names in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'username' and 'password' beyond what's obvious from their names, leaving some parameter meaning implicit.

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 specific action ('Authenticate a user via Basic auth and generate a bearer token'), the resource (user authentication), and distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are unrelated to authentication. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the authentication mechanism and token generation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Authenticate a user') and mentions an optional parameter ('Optionally specify a tenant_name to scope the login'), which gives some guidance on usage variations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though cdp_logout is clearly complementary.

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