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 operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response structure. The mention of 'POST /v2/{tenantId}/mailer/accounts' adds some API context but lacks operational details.

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 brief and to the point with two clear pieces of information: what it does and how to pass data. No unnecessary words, though it could be more structured. The HTTP method and endpoint are useful but could be better integrated.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data format but lacks details about parameters, behavior, and usage context that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 mentions passing 'the definition as a JSON string' which clarifies the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain what should be in that JSON or the purpose of 'tenant_id'. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 ('mailer account'), and mentions the HTTP method and endpoint path. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_mailer_account' by specifying creation rather than update, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_subuser'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. Sibling tools include other mailer-related creation tools, but no comparison or context is given.

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