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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. The mention of JSON string for 'body' hints at input format but lacks behavioral depth.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential parameter guidance, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.

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 coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, doesn't fully address parameters, and offers no usage guidance, leaving significant gaps for an update operation.

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 only mentions 'body' as a JSON string for updated fields, ignoring 'validator_id' and 'tenant_id'. This leaves two parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a column validator'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_column_validator' or 'cdp_delete_column_validator', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of an existing validator rather than creation or deletion.

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_create_column_validator' for creation or 'cdp_get_column_validator' for retrieval. It mentions passing updated fields as JSON, but this is a parameter instruction rather than usage context.

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