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 fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), whether it requires specific permissions, if it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, or what the output contains. This leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, or when to use it. The output schema may cover return values, but the description fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 (tenant_id, offset, limit) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what tenant_id refers to, how offset/limit work for pagination, or default behaviors. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 workflows for a tenant' clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('workflows'), but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify if this lists all workflows, active workflows, or something else, and among many sibling 'list_' tools (e.g., cdp_list_audience_defs, cdp_list_campaigns), it doesn't distinguish itself 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when it's appropriate (e.g., for browsing vs. filtering), or refer to other tools like cdp_get_workflow for detailed views. Usage is implied only by the name and description.

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