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 but lacks behavioral details. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'POST' hints at HTTP method but doesn't add meaningful operational context beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the action and parameter format. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the API endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint info. No wasted words, but could be more informative.

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, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at parameter format but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or full parameter semantics, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 but adds minimal param semantics. It mentions 'page definition as a JSON string' for the 'body' parameter, giving some context, but doesn't explain the structure or content of the JSON. The 'tenant_id' parameter is not addressed at all, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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 an emailable page') and resource ('emailable page'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_emailable_page' or 'cdp_delete_emailable_page' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools (e.g., 'cdp_create_campaign') beyond the resource name.

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 the API endpoint but doesn't indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose this over other creation tools in the sibling list. Usage context is implied only by the tool name.

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