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. 'Unschedule' implies a mutation (likely destructive), but the description doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, what happens to the compaction request (e.g., is it deleted or just paused?), or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and context about what 'unschedule' entails. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for these 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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at 'request_id', but doesn't explain what a compaction request ID is, the format, or the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('unschedule') and target ('compaction request by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'cdp_delete_compaction_request' or 'cdp_list_compaction_requests' that might exist in the broader context, though these specific siblings aren't in the provided 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It's a bare statement of function without any usage context.

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