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 discloses that the operation is asynchronous and returns a jobId for polling, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the segment definition JSON should contain, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, followed by essential usage details. Both sentences earn their place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (asynchronous mutation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the asynchronous nature and polling mechanism but lacks details on parameters, error cases, and behavioral traits. The output schema may handle return values, but the description should do more to guide usage.

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 adds meaning for the 'body' parameter by specifying it as a 'segment definition as a JSON string', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or provide examples or constraints for the JSON, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Start an asynchronous audience count calculation') and the resource ('audience'), specifying it's asynchronous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_audience_count' by indicating this initiates a calculation job rather than retrieving a count directly. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'cdp_execute_audience_def', which might have overlapping purposes.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for starting an asynchronous calculation that returns a jobId to poll later with 'cdp_get_calculated_count'. It implies an alternative by referencing the polling tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other audience-related tools like 'cdp_get_audience_count'.

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