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 mentions 'soft-delete' which implies a non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify what that entails (e.g., is it reversible? what happens to the page data? are there retention policies?). It also doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 - a single sentence that states the core action. It's front-loaded with the key information ('soft-delete an emailable page') and includes the API endpoint as supplementary detail. There's zero wasted verbiage, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the implications of 'soft-delete', doesn't guide parameter usage, and doesn't provide behavioral context. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to address critical aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling that would help the agent use this tool correctly.

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 documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters (page_id required, tenant_id optional with default null), the baseline is moderate. The description adds no value beyond what's inferable from the schema structure alone.

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('an emailable page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_emailable_page' (hard delete) by specifying 'soft-delete', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools in the list. The purpose is unambiguous but could better differentiate from similar tools.

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 mentions 'soft-delete' but doesn't explain what that means operationally, when it's appropriate, or what alternatives exist (e.g., hard delete, restore). There's no context on prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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