CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what the output contains. For a tool with 3 parameters and 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. There's no unnecessary verbiage, making it efficient despite the gaps in content.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the description lacks context on authentication, errors, and parameter details. It meets a basic threshold but has clear gaps for a tool in this context.

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 only mentions the 'body' parameter ('Pass customer IDs as a JSON string body'), leaving 'resource_name' and 'tenant_id' completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names suggest, failing to adequately cover the 3 parameters.

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 ('identities associated with given customer IDs'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'cdp_get_customer_360' or 'cdp_get_customer_360_detail', but the focus on identities is specific enough for basic clarity.

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 passing customer IDs as a JSON string body, but this is a parameter instruction rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to sibling tools.

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