CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to add any meaningful context. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, describe pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. The description merely restates the endpoint without behavioral insights.

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 endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick comprehension, 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's complexity (a list operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for missing parameter documentation, provide behavioral context, or explain usage, relying too heavily on the output schema to cover return values without addressing other critical aspects.

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 are undocumented in the schema, and the description adds no semantic information about them. It doesn't explain what 'tenant_id', 'offset', or 'limit' mean in context, their expected formats, or default behaviors, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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 subusers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdp_get_mailer_subuser' (singular retrieval) and 'cdp_create_mailer_subuser' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'cdp_list_mailer_accounts'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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., tenant context), use cases (e.g., browsing vs. filtering), or compare it to similar list tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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