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 states the tool is a lookup operation, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly confirm this or address other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational context.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity. However, the URL could be considered slightly redundant if the tool name already implies the operation, but it does not detract significantly from clarity.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as a lookup operation and hints at key parameters, but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps by likely defining return values, but the overall description remains incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'campaign + dispatch' and includes a URL path with placeholders for 'campaignId' and 'dispatchId', which hints at two required parameters. However, it does not explain the optional 'tenant_id' parameter or provide any semantic details about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. This fails 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 tool's purpose: 'Look up a mailer identifier by campaign + dispatch.' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('mailer identifier'), and key identifiers ('campaign + dispatch'), making the action distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier' or 'cdp_list_mailer_identifiers', which might serve similar purposes but with different parameters or scopes.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier' or 'cdp_list_mailer_identifiers'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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