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 for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a creation operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the output contains. The JSON format hint is minimal behavioral context.

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 very concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key parameter requirement. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and one parameter's format but lacks details on other parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it incomplete for safe operation.

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 'body' should be 'entity data as a JSON string,' which adds some meaning for one parameter. However, it doesn't explain 'resource_name' or 'tenant_id' (including its optional nature and purpose), leaving two parameters largely undocumented.

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 states the action ('Create a new entity') and target ('in a DW resource'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what an 'entity' means in this context or differentiate from similar creation tools like cdp_create_audience_def or cdp_create_campaign, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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 entity data as JSON, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when this is appropriate compared to other creation tools, or any constraints like required permissions or system states.

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