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 states the tool creates a duplicate, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether the original is affected), rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part earns its place by stating the action, resource, and outcome 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 tool has an output schema (which covers return values), the description's minimalism is partially offset. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The output schema helps, but key contextual gaps remain.

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 'by ID' for 'campaign_id', adding minimal context, but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' (optional parameter) or provide format examples (e.g., integer ID, string tenant). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds insufficient semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Clone/copy') and resource ('campaign definition by ID'), with the outcome ('Creates a duplicate'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_campaign' (new creation) and 'cdp_copy_campaign' (if existed, but not in list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other clone tools like 'cdp_clone_prediction' or 'cdp_clone_resource' beyond the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign ID), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'cdp_copy_campaign' (not in siblings) or creation tools. The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage rules.

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