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. It states this is a GET operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get a mailer account by id') and includes the API endpoint for technical context. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (simple GET with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks crucial context like parameter meanings and behavioral details, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by id' but doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., a mailer account identifier) or the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. It adds minimal semantics beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('a mailer account by id'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_mailer_accounts' (list operation) and 'cdp_create_mailer_account' (create operation) by focusing on retrieval of a single account. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations like 'cdp_get_mailer_batch', leaving some room for improvement.

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 (e.g., needing an existing mailer account ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing accounts), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_list_mailer_accounts' for broader queries. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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