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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't explicitly warn about permanence, confirm deletion effects, or mention any permissions required. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety information.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which may provide some return information), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like safety warnings, confirmation requirements, or what happens post-deletion. The presence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description should do more 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?

The description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (audience_def_id, tenant_id), the description doesn't compensate by explaining what these parameters mean or how they affect the deletion. However, the baseline is 3 since the tool name itself suggests the primary parameter (audience_def_id).

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('an audience definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like cdp_delete_campaign or cdp_delete_user, which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing audience definition), nor does it clarify when deletion is appropriate versus deactivation or other operations available in the sibling tool list.

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