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 discloses that results are paged (helpful), but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if tenant_id is null. For a list tool 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core action, the second adds critical behavioral detail (paging). It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a list operation.

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 with paging), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and paging behavior but misses parameter explanations, authentication needs, and sibling differentiation that would make it fully adequate.

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 mentions 'for a tenant' (hinting at tenant_id) and 'paged results' (hinting at offset/limit), but doesn't explain parameter purposes, defaults, or constraints. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied.

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 ('campaign definitions'), specifying scope ('for a tenant') and output behavior ('Returns paged results'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_campaign' (singular fetch) and 'cdp_list_campaign_runs' (different resource), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from other list tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for a tenant' but doesn't clarify if tenant_id is required or optional, or when to use this over other campaign-related tools like 'cdp_list_campaign_templates' or 'cdp_list_campaign_runs'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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