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 'Returns paged results', which adds useful context about pagination behavior. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, requirements, and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second specifies required inputs, and the third notes pagination. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required), zero schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the core purpose and some parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits and full parameter semantics. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'defId and defType (e.g. DATASET_DEF)', providing meaning for two of the five parameters (def_id and def_type). However, it doesn't explain tenant_id, offset, or limit, leaving three parameters without semantic context. This partial coverage fails to adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'List execution history (dataset descriptions) for a campaign definition.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('execution history'), and scope ('for a campaign definition'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_campaigns' or 'cdp_get_campaign_run', which list campaigns or get a specific run respectively, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 by stating 'Requires defId and defType (e.g. DATASET_DEF)', indicating prerequisites for use. It doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cdp_list_campaigns' for listing campaigns or 'cdp_get_campaign_run' for a specific run), nor does it specify exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving usage context partially covered.

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