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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any traits like pagination (though offset/limit parameters suggest it), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if tenant_id is null. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage context. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'tenant' implicitly via 'for a tenant', but doesn't explain the purpose of tenant_id, offset, or limit parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter roles or usage.

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 the resource ('summary customizations for a tenant'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cdp_get_summary_customization' (singular retrieval) by indicating it lists multiple items, though it 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'cdp_get_summary_customization' for a single customization or other list tools for different resources. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for listing summary customizations.

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