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 mentions that the tool 'Get[s] the latest execution status,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'latest' means in terms of data freshness. For a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and key parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and some parameters but lacks behavioral context and full parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values, but it should still address usage guidelines and transparency gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'defId and defType' and 'step details,' which partially maps to parameters (def_id, def_type, steps), but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'tenant_id' or provide context for 'defType' default values or 'steps' boolean. With 4 parameters and low coverage, the description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 the latest execution status for a campaign definition.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('execution status for a campaign definition'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_campaign_run' or 'cdp_get_dispatch', which might have overlapping functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 some implied usage guidance by stating 'Requires defId and defType. Optionally include step details,' which indicates prerequisites and optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'cdp_get_campaign_run' or 'cdp_get_dispatch'), and it lacks exclusions or clear context for selection among siblings.

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