CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation ('creates a copy') but lacks details on permissions, whether the clone inherits settings, if it's immediately active, or error handling. The HTTP method (POST) hints at mutation, but behavioral context like side effects or response format is missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It includes an API endpoint for context without verbosity, though the URL could be seen as extraneous if not adding value beyond the tool name.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (unseen), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or what the clone operation entails (e.g., if metadata is copied). The presence of an output schema might help, but the description lacks foundational context for safe and correct 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 no parameters explicitly, failing to explain 'prediction_def_id' (the ID to clone) or 'tenant_id' (context for multi-tenancy). The URL in the description includes placeholders but doesn't map them to input parameters, leaving semantics unclear.

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') and resource ('prediction definition'), specifying it creates a copy with a new ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_prediction' by focusing on duplication rather than creation from scratch, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other clone tools like 'cdp_clone_campaign'.

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), compare to other clone tools (e.g., 'cdp_clone_campaign'), or indicate typical use cases like testing modifications on a copy.

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