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 but only states the action 'delete' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions required, irreversibility, side effects, or error handling. It fails to address critical aspects such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific tenant context, or impacts related resources.

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 zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective communication.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context on behavior, parameters, and usage, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, though the output schema may mitigate some 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 description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain 'template_id' (e.g., what identifies a mapping template) or 'tenant_id' (e.g., optional tenant context), leaving both parameters undocumented beyond their schema types.

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 mapping template' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'mapping template', but lacks detail on what a mapping template is or the scope of deletion, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_delete_mapping_template' vs. 'cdp_delete_audience_def' or 'cdp_delete_campaign'.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention sibling tools like 'cdp_list_mapping_templates' for selection or 'cdp_update_mapping_template' for modifications, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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