CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'synchronous' which hints at blocking behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'audience count' entails (e.g., approximate vs. exact). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the return value), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters (one partially explained), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and one parameter's semantics but lacks behavioral context and full parameter guidance, making it incomplete for safe, informed use.

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 explains that 'body' should be a 'segment definition as a JSON string', adding crucial meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Body' title. However, it doesn't clarify 'tenant_id' at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('audience count'), specifying it's based on a segment definition and synchronous. It distinguishes from many sibling tools (e.g., cdp_calculate_audience, cdp_get_calculated_count) by focusing on count retrieval rather than calculation or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings like cdp_get_audience_def, which might retrieve definitions rather than counts.

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 mentions 'synchronous' but doesn't explain implications or compare to asynchronous options. With many sibling tools (e.g., cdp_calculate_audience, cdp_get_calculated_count), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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