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 states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, sorting, or what 'dispatch definitions' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List dispatch definitions'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral context and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for confident use without external knowledge.

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 description mentions 'for a campaign' which hints at 'campaign_id', but doesn't explain what 'campaign_id' is, its format, or the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('dispatch definitions for a campaign'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_dispatch' (singular fetch) and 'cdp_list_campaigns' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_list_campaign_runs' or 'cdp_get_run_dispatches' which are related but not identical.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid campaign_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'cdp_get_dispatch' (for single dispatch) or 'cdp_get_run_dispatches' (for run-specific dispatches). Usage is implied only by the name and description.

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