CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters suggest pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a list operation with 3 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 (list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address key contextual aspects like parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or usage guidance. For a tool with 3 parameters in a large sibling set, more context is needed.

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% (titles only provide parameter names), and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'tenant_id', 'offset', or 'limit' mean, their expected values, or how they affect the listing. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 'List A360 identity resolution rules' clearly states the action (list) and resource (A360 identity resolution rules). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_a360_rule' (get single) and 'cdp_create_a360_rule' (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'cdp_list_audience_defs' or 'cdp_list_dqe1_rules' beyond the specific resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools like 'cdp_get_a360_rule' (for single rule details) or 'cdp_create_a360_rule' (for creation) would be more appropriate. The agent must 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.