CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The mention of 'advanced configuration' via JSON body adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and basic usage, the second adds channel options. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, though the channel list could be more structured. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more organized.

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 (5 parameters, 2 required, mutation tool) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main parameters and usage modes, and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, it should include more behavioral context like permissions or error handling to be fully adequate.

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 adds meaning by explaining that name and connector_type are required for simple creation, and that a JSON body can be used for advanced configuration. It also lists channel options (email, export, sms, ads, facebook, any), which clarifies the channel parameter. However, it doesn't explain tenant_id or provide details on connector_type values or JSON body structure, leaving gaps.

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 a new connector') and specifies the required parameters (name and connector_type), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cdp_get_connector or cdp_update_connector. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_create_connector_template or cdp_create_output_connector, which are similar creation tools.

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 implies usage by mentioning two modes (simple creation with name/connector_type vs. advanced configuration with JSON body), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_create_connector_template or cdp_create_output_connector. It provides some context about channel options but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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