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 for behavioral disclosure. It reveals this is a 'soft-delete' operation (not permanent deletion), which is valuable context beyond the name. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 purpose. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Soft-delete') and includes the API endpoint for technical context. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address critical context: what 'soft-delete' means operationally, prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a delete operation and poor schema documentation, the description should provide more 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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all - it doesn't explain what 'id' represents (subuser identifier) or when 'tenant_id' is needed versus optional. With 2 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, the description adds no parameter semantics value.

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 ('a mailer subuser'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_mailer_account' by specifying the subuser resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_restore_mailer_subuser' which handles restoration of soft-deleted items.

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. It doesn't mention when soft-delete is appropriate versus hard delete, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'cdp_restore_mailer_subuser' for undoing this operation or 'cdp_delete_mailer_account' for different resource types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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