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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body parameter adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are largely undocumented.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing mapping template') and follows with essential parameter guidance. There is zero wasted verbiage; every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description there. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks critical context like error conditions, side effects, or authentication needs, leaving gaps despite the output schema.

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 but only partially does. It clarifies that 'body' should be a 'JSON string' containing 'updated fields', which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain 'template_id' (e.g., how to obtain it) or 'tenant_id' (e.g., when it's required), leaving two of three parameters with minimal semantic context.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing mapping template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_mapping_template' (create) and 'cdp_delete_mapping_template' (delete) by focusing on modification. However, it doesn't specify what a 'mapping template' is or what fields can be updated, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 template ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creation or deletion), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mapping_template' or 'cdp_list_mapping_templates'. 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.