CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource. While it lacks detail, every word earns its place by stating the essential operation.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, 2 parameters, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for safe and correct usage—missing behavioral warnings, parameter explanations, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema existence slightly mitigates but doesn't compensate for the other gaps.

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 tool description adds no information about the two parameters (group_id and tenant_id). It doesn't explain what a 'group_id' is, how to obtain it, what format it expects, or the purpose of the optional 'tenant_id'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 an execution summary group' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (execution summary group), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like cdp_delete_campaign, cdp_delete_dashboard, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type. It's vague about what an 'execution summary group' actually is in this context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), consequences (e.g., data loss), or when to choose this over other deletion tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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