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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 2 parameters (one required, one optional), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It lacks context about parameters, behavioral implications, error conditions, and usage prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 parameter titles ('Squery Def Id', 'Tenant Id') provide minimal semantic context. The description only mentions 'by ID,' which corresponds to the required 'squery_def_id' parameter but adds no detail about format, validation, or purpose. It completely ignores the optional 'tenant_id' parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 resource ('a SQueryDef by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like cdp_delete_campaign, cdp_delete_user, etc.), which all follow the same 'Delete X by ID' pattern.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the SQueryDef ID), what happens after deletion, or whether there are recovery options. Given the destructive nature implied by 'Delete,' this lack of usage context is problematic.

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