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 but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent/reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), rate limits, or error conditions. 'Delete' implies destructive, but lacks context needed for safe invocation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (unknown content), the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context: parameter details, behavioral traits (permanence, permissions), usage prerequisites, and output expectations. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing safety and invocation guidance.

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 parameters are undocumented in schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at campaign_id but doesn't explain its format or source. It completely omits tenant_id (optional parameter), leaving its purpose and when to use it unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a campaign definition by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools (like cdp_delete_audience_def or cdp_delete_dashboard), but the resource specificity is adequate for basic clarity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing campaign_id), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete active campaigns), or sibling tools for related operations (like cdp_get_campaign to verify existence first).

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