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 the tool creates a dispatch definition, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body parameter adds some context but is insufficient 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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a direct instruction for the body parameter. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, keeping it from being a complete failure.

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 only mentions that the 'body' parameter should be a 'JSON string', adding minimal semantics for one of three parameters. It doesn't explain 'campaign_id' or 'tenant_id', leaving most parameters undocumented. This fails to adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('dispatch definition for a campaign'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_dispatch' or 'cdp_get_dispatch' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'cdp_create_campaign'), leaving room for improvement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing campaign), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'cdp_update_dispatch' or 'cdp_list_dispatches'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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