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 HTTP method (POST) and that some actions require a body, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether these actions are destructive, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly convey essential information: what the tool does, available actions, and parameter requirements. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description provides basic action and parameter guidance but lacks behavioral context. It's minimally adequate for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for safe operation without additional documentation about effects, permissions, or error handling.

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 adds value by explaining that 'action' accepts specific values (regenerate_credentials, apply_policy_change) and that 'body' is required for apply_policy_change and should be a JSON string. However, it doesn't explain 'instance_id' or 'tenant_id' semantics, leaving two of four parameters with minimal context.

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 tool performs actions on a provision instance, specifying two concrete actions (regenerate_credentials, apply_policy_change). It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_create_provision_instance or cdp_update_provision_instance by focusing on specific operational actions rather than creation or general updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools in the extensive list.

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 when needing to perform one of the two listed actions on a provision instance, and mentions that apply_policy_change requires a body parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cdp_update_provision_instance or cdp_reactivate_provision_instance, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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