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 describes the validation action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutating, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and misses key operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and what it checks. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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 moderate complexity (validation with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral context. The output schema may help with return values, but the description does not compensate for other gaps, making it minimally adequate with clear deficiencies.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'expression, arguments, and output attributes' but does not map these to the input parameters ('body' and 'tenant_id'). It fails to explain what 'body' should contain (e.g., the SQueryDef JSON) or the role of 'tenant_id', leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate a SQueryDef's expression, arguments, and output attributes.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('SQueryDef'), and details what is validated (expression, arguments, output attributes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_squery_def' or 'cdp_copy_squery_def', which would require mentioning it's for validation only, not retrieval or copying.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a SQueryDef to validate), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'cdp_generate_squery_def' or 'cdp_update_squery_def'. Usage is implied from the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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