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 mentions the tool is for polling an async calculation, which implies it might return pending or error states, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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 key information: the purpose and usage guideline. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a score of 5.

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 moderate complexity (async polling with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter details and behavioral context. With the output schema mitigating some gaps, a score of 3 reflects an adequate but incomplete description.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (tenant_id and job_id). It doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their requiredness, or how they relate to the async calculation. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a score of 1.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the result of an async audience calculation' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('result'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'cdp_calculate_audience' by indicating it's for polling after that calculation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other get-like siblings (e.g., 'cdp_get_audience_count'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'poll after cdp_calculate_audience', providing clear context and naming the specific alternative tool. This gives the agent direct guidance on the sequence of operations, meeting the criteria for a score of 5.

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