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 mentions 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, rate limits, or what the output contains. The JSON string 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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a practical implementation detail. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will document return values, but the description lacks crucial context about the creation operation, parameter details, and behavioral expectations. It meets basic requirements but leaves significant gaps.

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 'template as a JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify the JSON structure, required fields, or examples. The 'tenant_id' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 mapping template') which is clear, but it doesn't specify what a 'mapping template' is or how it differs from other template-related tools like 'cdp_create_campaign_template' or 'cdp_create_connector_template'. The verb+resource combination is present but lacks domain-specific context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, related operations (like 'cdp_update_mapping_template' or 'cdp_delete_mapping_template'), or contextual constraints. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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