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 only states it 'gets' a summary view, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by offset/limit parameters), error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a read tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 an example. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no redundant information. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameter guidance.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It doesn't adequately explain parameters, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 fails to do so. It mentions 'resource type' and provides an example ('list of customer profiles'), which loosely relates to the 'resource_name' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of any parameters (resource_name, tenant_id, offset, limit, fq). With 5 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the agent lacks essential semantic context.

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 'Get Customer 360 summary view for a resource type (e.g., list of customer profiles)', which clarifies it retrieves a summary view for a specified resource type. However, it's vague about what a 'Customer 360 summary view' entails and doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_customer_360_detail' or 'cdp_get_customer_360_realtime', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions an example ('list of customer profiles') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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