CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the mutation behavior ('Creates a copy with a new ID'), output format ('returns the cloned object'), and resource constraints ('any resource that supports versioning'), but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be important 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose, second provides scope and output details, third gives specific parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description does well by explaining the cloning behavior, resource constraints, and parameter usage. However, for a mutation tool, it should ideally mention permission requirements or side effects that aren't covered by the output schema alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It provides crucial semantic information about resource_path format ('must include the ID, e.g. 'campaigndefs/123'') and path_style usage ('Set path_style to 'none' for campaign/config/connector resources'), though it doesn't explain tenant_id's purpose or provide examples for all parameter combinations.

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 specific action ('Clone any CDP resource instance') and resource scope ('campaigns, workflows, connectors, predictions, reports, etc.'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cdp_clone_campaign and cdp_clone_prediction by being a generic cloning tool for any versioned resource rather than specific resource types.

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 about when to use the tool ('Works on any resource that supports versioning') and includes a specific parameter usage guideline ('Set path_style to 'none' for campaign/config/connector resources'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for non-versioned resources.

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