CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related resources, rate limits, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 the complexity of a destructive delete operation, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about behavior, parameters, and usage, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the two parameters (dispatch_id and tenant_id) beyond what's inferred from their names. It doesn't explain what a dispatch ID is, how to obtain it, or when tenant_id is needed. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Delete a dispatch definition' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('dispatch definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_update_dispatch' (update) and 'cdp_get_dispatch' (read), but doesn't specify what a 'dispatch definition' is or how it differs from other deletable resources like campaigns or audiences.

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 (e.g., needing the dispatch ID), what happens after deletion, or whether there are sibling tools for related operations like listing dispatches first. It's a basic statement without context.

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