CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the entity doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it's arguably too concise given the complexity of the tool and lack of supporting information elsewhere.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't provide enough context about the tool's role, parameters, or behavior to be considered complete. It meets the bare minimum for a simple retrieval tool.

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 beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It mentions 'resource name and ID' but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their format, or the purpose of optional parameters like 'tenant_id' and 'include'. With 4 parameters (2 required), this is inadequate.

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 action ('Get') and target ('a single entity'), but is vague about what an 'entity' represents in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_campaign' or 'cdp_get_user', which also retrieve single items. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain.

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. With many sibling 'get' tools (e.g., cdp_get_campaign, cdp_get_user), the description doesn't explain that this is a generic entity retrieval tool or when to choose it over more specific ones. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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