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) and mentions the HTTP method (PUT), but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), response format, or side effects. 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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing prediction definition') and includes the API endpoint for technical context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors), parameter details (beyond a vague JSON string note), and doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves too many gaps for safe and effective use.

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 mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' for the 'body' parameter, which adds some semantics, but doesn't explain what fields are updatable, the JSON structure, or provide examples. It doesn't address 'prediction_def_id' (what it is, where to get it) or 'tenant_id' (when it's required vs optional). With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, the description provides insufficient parameter guidance.

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 prediction definition'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_prediction' (create vs update) and 'cdp_get_prediction' (read vs update), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The inclusion of the HTTP method (PUT) adds technical specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prediction definition ID), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_create_prediction' for creation or 'cdp_delete_prediction' for removal. The description assumes the user knows when updates are appropriate.

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