CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool updates a password and requires a reset code, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., if the user is logged out). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose and lists parameters without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and inputs.

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, 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like security implications or error handling, which are important for a password 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 lists all three parameters (username, reset code, new password) and explains their purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. This covers the parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail constraints like password complexity.

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 a user's password') and resource ('user's password'), specifying it uses a reset code. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_user' or 'cdp_generate_password_reset' by focusing on password updates via reset codes, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 implies usage context by stating 'using a valid reset code,' suggesting it's for password reset scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. other user-update tools or provide prerequisites beyond the reset code, leaving some ambiguity.

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