CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update an existing connector') and adds necessary detail about the JSON format. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on updatable fields, permissions, error handling, and the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. For a tool that modifies resources, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 adds minimal semantics: it implies 'connector_id' identifies the connector to update and 'body' contains updated fields as JSON. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of 'tenant_id' (optional parameter), what fields are updatable in the JSON, or any constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('existing connector'), and specifies the format for providing updates ('as a JSON string'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_connector' (create vs. update) and 'cdp_delete_connector' (update vs. delete). However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the connector's purpose, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing connector ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creation or deletion), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_get_connector' for retrieving connector details before updating. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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