CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions optional offset/limit for pagination but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant: the first states the action and resource, the second adds pagination context. There's no wasted text, though it could be more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at pagination but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and when to use versus alternatives. The output schema reduces 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'lookup by name' and 'optional offset/limit', covering 3 of 4 parameters superficially. It doesn't explain what 'lookup' expects (exact match, partial, case-sensitive), what 'tenant_id' does, or the behavior of offset/limit. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 ('Lookup') and resource ('audiences by name'), specifying it returns matching audience definitions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_list_audience_defs' by focusing on lookup/search functionality rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other lookup tools like 'cdp_lookup_values'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools like 'cdp_list_audience_defs' or 'cdp_get_audience_def'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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