CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, validation rules for the JSON body, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body adds minimal context but doesn't compensate for the lack of safety or operational details.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an output connector definition'). It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, the lack of additional context or structure means it may be too terse for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 of a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the existence of an output schema (which helps), but fails to explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for reliable tool invocation without external knowledge.

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 documentation. The description only vaguely addresses one parameter ('body' as a 'JSON string'), leaving 'connector_def_id' and 'tenant_id' entirely unexplained. It doesn't clarify what fields the JSON should contain, the format of the ID, or when tenant_id is required. This fails to compensate for the poor schema 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 ('output connector definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_output_connector_def' and 'cdp_delete_output_connector_def' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what an 'output connector definition' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the resource being modified.

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 definition ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'cdp_update_output_connector' (which might update connector instances), or specify scenarios where this update is appropriate versus creating a new definition. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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