CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the GET endpoint and conditional behavior based on event_id. It doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or what the response format looks like. For a status-checking tool with zero 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and key parameter behavior. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with conditional logic. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating parameter explanations.

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 moderate complexity (status retrieval with optional filtering), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need description, but the description should better explain parameter usage and behavioral context. It covers the basic purpose but leaves too many operational questions unanswered for a tool interacting with data purge systems.

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% (parameters only have titles 'Tenant Id' and 'Event Id'), so the description must compensate. It only mentions event_id ('If event_id is supplied, returns status for that specific purge event'), adding some semantics for that parameter. However, it completely ignores tenant_id - not explaining its purpose, whether it's required, or how it affects the query. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this partial coverage is insufficient.

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: 'Get data-purge status' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'data-purge status'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on purge status retrieval rather than other CDP operations like cache management or campaign execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar status-checking tools like 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status' or 'cdp_get_orchestration_status'.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'If event_id is supplied, returns status for that specific purge event', suggesting it can be used for both general status checks and specific event queries. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status'), and doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or tenant context requirements.

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