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 and endpoint, failing to describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it's safe to call, what authentication is required, how pagination works (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), or potential side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits 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 extremely concise—a single sentence that includes the action and endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted 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's complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which might describe return values but isn't provided here), the description is inadequate. It fails to address key contextual elements like authentication needs, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how it fits among sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what tenant_id refers to, how offset and limit affect pagination, or their default behaviors. With zero coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

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 identifiers' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It provides the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v2/{tenantId}/mailer/identifiers', which hints at a list operation but lacks specificity about what 'mailer identifiers' are or the scope of the listing. Compared to siblings like 'cdp_get_mailer_identifier' (singular) or 'cdp_list_mailer_accounts', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the resource name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when to prefer it over other list tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_mailer_accounts'), or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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