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 only states the action ('List') and endpoint, without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it includes an endpoint path that may be redundant for tool selection, and the single sentence lacks structure for additional context, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or how it fits into the broader context of mailer batch management, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters (tenant_id, offset, limit), such as their purposes, formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 mailer batches (GET /v2/{tenantId}/mailer/batches)' states the action ('List') and resource ('mailer batches'), but it's vague about what 'mailer batches' are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mailer_batch' (singular retrieval) or 'cdp_process_mailer_batch' (processing). It partially restates the name/title, making it tautological in parts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this is for bulk listing versus specific retrieval (e.g., 'cdp_get_mailer_batch'), or how it relates to other mailer tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_batch'. The description lacks any context or exclusions.

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