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 the tool deletes a data export definition, implying a destructive operation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting scheduled exports), or returns confirmation data. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose 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 deletion tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, leaving the agent to infer or rely on other sources.

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 mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'export_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide context beyond what the schema's titles imply. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value, as it doesn't clarify parameter formats, constraints, or usage examples.

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 the resource ('a data export definition by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_copy_data_export' or 'cdp_update_data_export' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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 like 'cdp_delete_data_erasure_request' or other deletion tools in the sibling list. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing export ID, or when deletion is appropriate versus deactivation.

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