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 the action ('Re-run') but doesn't describe what this entails—whether it creates a new job instance, retains previous configurations, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details provided in the context signals, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage distinctions, leaving the agent with critical gaps.

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 parameters (workflow_id, job_id, tenant_id) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—what they represent, their formats, or how to obtain them. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Re-run') and the target resource ('a completed or failed workflow job'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_run_workflow' or 'cdp_resume_job', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 minimal guidance by specifying the job states ('completed or failed') for which the tool is applicable, but it doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_run_workflow' for new runs or 'cdp_resume_job' for suspended jobs). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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