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. It mentions listing 'raw audience definitions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a usage guideline, making it efficient and well-structured. Every sentence adds value 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 the tool's moderate complexity (listing with filtering/pagination), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and a use case but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. The output schema mitigates the need to describe 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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters, failing to explain what 'tenant_id', 'offset', 'limit', or 'lookup' mean or how they affect the listing. This leaves all 4 parameters undocumented, which is a significant gap given 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 action ('List datasetDefs') and resource ('raw audience definitions for a tenant'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it lists 'datasetDefs' rather than other resources like campaigns or connectors, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list tools like 'cdp_list_audience_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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for discovering shared definitions before calling cdp_copy_datasetdef.' This gives a specific use case and mentions a related tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with all alternatives like 'cdp_get_dataset_def' or other list tools.

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