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 implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the identifier doesn't exist. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and includes the API endpoint for technical context, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its purpose.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or parameter meanings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional 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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by id' which maps to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or its purpose. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property names imply, leaving key semantics unclear.

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 ('mailer identifier by id'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier_by_campaign_dispatch' or 'cdp_list_mailer_identifiers', which would require explicit scope or usage context.

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 like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier_by_campaign_dispatch' or 'cdp_list_mailer_identifiers'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific identifier, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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