CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of JSON string for 'body' hints at input format but lacks depth on behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and includes a brief parameter note. It's efficient with two sentences, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter instructions).

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 'action' and 'body' as JSON string, adding minimal meaning beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't explain 'user_id' or 'tenant_id', leaving 2 of 4 parameters undocumented, failing to adequately address the coverage gap.

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 ('a self-service user's status'), with a specific example ('activate/deactivate'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_selfservice_user' by focusing on status changes rather than general updates, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_update_selfservice_user' for non-status updates or 'cdp_create_selfservice_user' for creation). The description mentions passing parameters but doesn't specify usage context or prerequisites.

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