CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits—e.g., whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.

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 very concise—a single sentence with the tool action and endpoint. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It's structurally simple but under-specified.

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 complexity (a list operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning or explanation for these parameters—it doesn't clarify what 'tenant_id' refers to, how offset/limit work for pagination, or default behaviors. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List emailable pages (GET /v2/{tenantId}/emailablepages)' restates the tool name and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, but it's essentially tautological—it doesn't explain what 'emailable pages' are or what the tool actually does beyond listing them. It lacks specificity and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_emailable_page' or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it relates to sibling tools like 'cdp_get_emailable_page' or when pagination via offset/limit is needed. It provides no usage instructions.

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