CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutation operation (creates a new independent copy), explains the error condition that triggers its need (E400), and specifies the output usage (embed returned object in campaign audience field). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: first explains the core action and error context, second provides immediate usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place by addressing purpose, trigger, and next steps.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the why, what, and how-to-use, though could better clarify parameter semantics. The output schema likely covers return values, so description focuses appropriately on operational context.

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 implies 'dataset_def_id' is the source to copy and 'tenant_id' might be contextual, but doesn't explicitly explain either parameter's role or format. The description adds some context about the error scenario but doesn't fully document parameter meanings beyond what's inferable from the schema titles.

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 verb ('copy') and resource ('datasetDef/audience definition'), specifies it creates a 'new, independent one', and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining the specific error scenario (E400) that necessitates its use, unlike generic copy tools in the list.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('CDP rejects shared datasetDefs across campaigns with E400') and provides a concrete alternative workflow ('Use this tool to produce a detached copy, then embed the returned object inline in your new campaign's audience field'), giving clear operational context.

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