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 states this triggers processing (implies mutation/action) and mentions optional JSON body forwarding, but lacks critical behavioral details: what 'processing' entails, whether it's idempotent, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the batch doesn't exist. The POST method hint is useful but 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds technical detail about the optional body. However, the endpoint path inclusion could be considered extraneous since it's not needed for tool selection.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the main action and hints at parameters but misses tenant_id entirely and lacks behavioral context. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still explain the processing action more thoroughly.

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. It only mentions 'by id' (mapping to batch_id) and 'optional JSON body' (mapping to body), but doesn't explain tenant_id parameter at all. No details on parameter formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from 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 tool's purpose: 'Trigger processing of a mailer batch by id' - a specific verb ('trigger processing') and resource ('mailer batch'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_mailer_batch' (read) and 'cdp_create_mailer_batch' (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other processing-related tools like 'cdp_start_campaign'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the endpoint path but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., batch must exist), expected outcomes, or when to use this versus other mailer batch operations like 'cdp_update_mailer_batch' or campaign tools.

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