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. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the campaign ID doesn't exist, rate limits, or the response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 low complexity (a simple read operation), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and the lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to address key contextual aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or differentiation from sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'campaign_id' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any additional context about parameter formats, constraints, or usage beyond what's implied. It adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 ('campaign definition by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_campaigns' or 'cdp_get_campaign_run', which provide related but distinct functionality.

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 like authentication, compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_campaigns' for listing all campaigns), or specify when it's appropriate to fetch a single campaign by ID versus other methods.

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