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 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a creation 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 a single sentence that directly states the action and parameters, with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief but could be more structured by separating purpose from parameter guidance.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, provides no behavioral context for a mutation tool, and relies entirely on the output schema for return values without any high-level explanation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'template type and entityId along with tenant list as JSON body', which names three parameters but doesn't explain their meaning, valid values, or relationships. It omits the 'tenant_id' parameter entirely and provides no semantic details beyond naming.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new campaign template'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_campaign' by specifying 'template', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other template-related tools like 'cdp_create_connector_template' or 'cdp_create_mapping_template'.

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. The description mentions passing parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other campaign or template creation tools in the sibling list.

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