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 discloses that results are paged, which is useful behavioral context, but lacks other critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('List message definitions for a tenant' and 'Returns paged results') adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and paging behavior but misses parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details like safety or permissions. For a list tool in a complex system, this leaves too many gaps 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%, 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 behaviors. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('List') and resource ('message definitions for a tenant'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdp_get_message_def' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'cdp_list_audience_defs' beyond the resource type.

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. While the description implies it's for listing message definitions, it doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose it over other list tools, or any constraints like required permissions. The mention of paged results hints at usage for large datasets but isn't explicit guidance.

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