CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool (implying a write/mutation operation) and mentions the HTTP method (POST), but fails to describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The single sentence efficiently conveys what the tool does and includes the API endpoint, though it could be more structured by separating the action from implementation details.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't compensate for input gaps), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool 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%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description only mentions passing 'the definition as a JSON string' for the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain what that definition should contain, its structure, or the purpose of the 'tenant_id' parameter. This leaves both parameters essentially 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 clearly states the action ('Create a mailer subuser') and the resource ('mailer subuser'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_account' or 'cdp_create_user', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool.

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, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_account' or 'cdp_create_user', leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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