CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a read operation ('Get details'). It doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., structure, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns complex campaign execution data.

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 core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 documents return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a mutation-heavy sibling context, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only safety, typical response structure) to be fully complete.

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 but adds no parameter information. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at 'run_id', but doesn't explain what a 'run_id' is, the optional 'tenant_id' parameter, or their formats/constraints. This leaves both parameters largely 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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('specific campaign execution (dataset description) by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_campaign' or 'cdp_list_campaign_runs', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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, typical use cases, or how it differs from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., cdp_get_campaign, cdp_get_run_dispatches).

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