CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavioral trait: 'Returns paged results,' which informs the agent about pagination handling. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the paged response structure looks like (though output schema exists). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential information in minimal space.

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 (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and pagination but lacks parameter explanations, error handling, and context about audience definitions. With output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a tenant' which loosely relates to 'tenant_id', but doesn't explain the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) or their semantics. It doesn't clarify if tenant_id is required, what offset/limit control, or default behaviors. The description adds minimal 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 action ('List') and resource ('audience definitions for a tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_audience_def' (singular retrieval) and 'cdp_lookup_audience_defs' (lookup operation). However, it doesn't specify what 'audience definitions' are in this context, leaving some domain-specific ambiguity.

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. With many sibling list tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_campaigns', 'cdp_list_users'), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or differences from other listing operations. The mention of 'paged results' is a behavioral detail, not usage guidance.

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