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 it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters hint at it), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns all exports or only active ones. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all data export definitions') and efficiently specifies the scope ('for a tenant'). 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 low complexity (list operation), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description detail. However, for a tool with undocumented parameters and no behavioral context, it should do more to compensate.

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 schema provides only parameter names (tenant_id, offset, limit) with no descriptions. The description mentions 'for a tenant' which loosely relates to tenant_id, but doesn't explain what tenant_id is, whether it's required, or the semantics of offset/limit for pagination. It adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 all') and resource ('data export definitions for a tenant'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_data_export' (singular) and 'cdp_run_data_export' (execution), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'cdp_list_audience_defs' or 'cdp_list_campaigns' beyond the 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 (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from other list tools in the server. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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