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. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 high complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description doesn't add enough value beyond the structured fields to guide effective tool use.

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 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'OAuth client'—it doesn't explain what client_numeric_id, tenant_id, grants, etc., mean or how they affect the update. With 0% coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 'Update an existing OAuth client' clearly states the action (update) and resource (OAuth client). It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_create_client (create) and cdp_delete_client (delete), but doesn't specify what aspects of the client can be updated beyond the generic term.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing client), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools like cdp_update_user or cdp_update_role. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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