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 it's an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output schema contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter hints).

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 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and full parameter semantics, leaving the agent reliant on the output schema for return values.

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 mentions 'ID' (mapping to 'dashboard_id') and 'updated fields as a JSON string' (mapping to 'body'), but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' or provide format details for the JSON string. It partially compensates but leaves key parameters inadequately documented.

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 ('an existing dashboard by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_dashboard' (creation) and 'cdp_delete_dashboard' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'cdp_update_widget').

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., dashboard must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to other update tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.

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