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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the two-step creation workflow, the rejection of shared messageDefs (error E0420), the optional folder placement behavior, and backend defaults. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like permissions needed or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by workflow instructions, warnings, and parameter guidance. Each sentence adds critical information, and the text is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and recommended approach.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides strong context about the creation process, workflow, and parameter usage. It references external documentation for templates and enums, but doesn't explain what the output contains or address all parameters fully, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It explains the purpose of 'name' and 'description' in the initial call, clarifies that 'body' should be omitted initially, and details when to use 'folder_id' versus omitting it. It doesn't cover 'tenant_id' or provide format details, but compensates well for the schema gap.

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 ('Create a new campaign definition') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_campaign' by outlining a two-step workflow. It explicitly mentions what resources are involved (campaign with audience and messageDefs), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it recommends a workflow where this tool is called with minimal parameters first, then 'cdp_update_campaign' for full configuration. It also specifies when NOT to use certain approaches (e.g., 'Do NOT reference an existing messageDef by resourceId') and references external documentation for templates.

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