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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') and API endpoint, lacking critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description fails to add meaningful 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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's action and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 has an output schema (which helps), but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage for three parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or provide behavioral context needed for a list operation (e.g., pagination, sorting, or response format hints). The description is too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 none of the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'tenant_id' refers to, how 'offset' and 'limit' work for pagination, or their default values. This leaves parameters completely undocumented.

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 ('mailer accounts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_get_mailer_account' (singular retrieval) and 'cdp_create_mailer_account' (creation), though it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation in the text.

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., authentication), when to use it over other list tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_mailer_batches'), or any constraints like pagination defaults. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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