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 discloses the tool's destructive nature (revoking tokens) and authentication options, but misses critical behavioral details like required permissions, side effects (e.g., logged-out sessions), rate limits, or response format. For a security-sensitive mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently details the two input modes. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 (security mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics partially but misses behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, effects). The presence of an output schema (per context signals) mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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 effectively explains the semantics of 'token' (for specific revocation) and 'username/password' (for bulk revocation), adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it omits the 'scheme' parameter entirely, leaving one of four parameters 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 clearly states the action ('revoke') and resource ('access token'), specifying it can target a specific token or all tokens for a user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_token' or 'cdp_extend_token' by focusing on revocation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other token-related tools beyond naming the action.

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?

It implies usage by describing two input scenarios (bearer token vs username/password), which suggests when to use each approach. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs 'cdp_delete_token' if it existed), prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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