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 indicates this tool triggers a calculation workflow, implying it may initiate a background process or have side effects, but it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the output entails. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs a significant operation.

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 brief and to the point with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's action. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including parameter or usage details without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters, behavioral traits, or when to use it, and while an output schema exists, the description provides no context on what the execution entails or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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. It does not mention any parameters or their meanings (e.g., what 'audience_def_id' or 'tenant_id' represent). The description fails to add semantic context beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 states the tool 'Execute/calculate an audience definition' and 'Triggers the audience calculation workflow', which clarifies the verb (execute/calculate) and resource (audience definition). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'cdp_calculate_audience' or 'cdp_get_audience_count', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_calculate_audience' or 'cdp_get_audience_count'. The description mentions triggering a workflow but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among similar tools in the server.

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