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. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned, but this is low-value without further context on side effects or error conditions.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a prediction definition') without unnecessary words. It includes the HTTP endpoint as supplementary detail, which doesn't detract from clarity. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: parameter meanings, behavioral risks, usage constraints, and differentiation from siblings. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough guidance for safe and effective use in a broader context.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'prediction_def_id' or 'tenant_id' represent, their formats, or usage. For a tool with 2 parameters (1 required), this is a significant gap, failing 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a prediction definition'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_campaign' or 'cdp_delete_audience_def' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_clone_prediction' or 'cdp_update_prediction' beyond the verb, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prediction definition ID), exclusions (e.g., not for active predictions), or comparisons to siblings like 'cdp_update_prediction' or 'cdp_clone_prediction'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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