CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'resume' implies a state change (from suspended to active), the description doesn't address permission requirements, side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the job isn't suspended. It lacks crucial context for a mutation tool.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't address behavioral aspects or parameter meanings. It's adequate for the simplest understanding but lacks depth needed for confident tool selection.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the three parameters (workflow_id, job_id, tenant_id) - it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how they relate to resuming a job. This leaves parameters completely 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 'Resume a suspended workflow job' clearly states the action (resume) and target resource (suspended workflow job), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_rerun_job' or 'cdp_kill_job' which also operate on jobs, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_rerun_job' or 'cdp_kill_job' (both sibling tools). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the job must be suspended) or context for when resuming is appropriate versus other job actions.

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