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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's read-only (safe operation), supports only SELECT statements (restricts usage), and uses POST for long queries (handles large payloads). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for a mutation-like tool (though read-only).

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each add critical information: the core action, the specific use case, and the restriction. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key points without redundancy.

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 complexity (SQL execution with parameters), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits, but the lack of parameter details and some behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling) prevents a perfect score.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'SQL query' and 'POST body,' which loosely relates to the 'query' parameter, but provides no details on query format, SQL dialect, or the purpose of 'tenant_id.' This leaves significant gaps in understanding the parameters beyond their names.

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 ('Execute a read-only SQL query via POST body'), identifies the resource (SQL queries), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's for long queries that exceed URL limits, unlike the sibling 'cdp_query_sql' which likely uses GET. It explicitly states 'Only SELECT statements are supported,' which further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for long queries that may exceed URL length limits') and when not to use it ('Only SELECT statements are supported'), implying it's not for write operations. It also suggests an alternative by contrasting with the sibling 'cdp_query_sql' (implied for shorter queries via GET), though not explicitly named.

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