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 mentions 'Supports filtering via fq parameter', which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a query tool with 7 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an additional clause about filtering. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters.

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 (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter roles, usage scenarios, or behavioral expectations, leaving significant gaps for a tool that queries entities from a data warehouse.

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 only mentions the 'fq' parameter for filtering, ignoring the other 6 parameters (resource_name, tenant_id, offset, limit, sort, include). This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics 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 states the tool 'Query entities from a CDP data warehouse resource' with examples like 'customer, organization, transaction', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from many sibling list tools (e.g., cdp_list_campaigns, cdp_list_users) beyond mentioning 'entities' and 'CDP data warehouse resource', leaving the scope somewhat vague compared to alternatives.

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 other list tools (e.g., cdp_list_campaigns for campaigns, cdp_list_users for users). It mentions filtering via 'fq parameter' but doesn't explain when this is appropriate or what alternatives exist, offering minimal usage context.

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