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 mentions 'Requires type parameter,' indicating a constraint, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'List available' entails (e.g., all templates vs. filtered). For a read operation 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds crucial parameter guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place efficiently without redundancy.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key parameter but misses details on tenant_id, behavioral traits, and relies on the output schema for return values. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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. It adds meaning for 'template_type' by providing examples (PLAYBOOK, MESSAGE, AUDIENCE), which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't address the 'tenant_id' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters undocumented. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available campaign templates'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on templates rather than campaigns or other resources, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list tools like cdp_list_campaigns or cdp_list_message_defs.

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 implies usage by mentioning the required type parameter with examples (PLAYBOOK, MESSAGE, AUDIENCE), suggesting when to use it for template listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like cdp_get_campaign_template or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the parameter.

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