CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a publish/mutation operation (implied by 'Publish'), mentions the specific workflow used ('CAMPAIGN_FLOW_DEFAULT'), and references the UI equivalent. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to campaigns in different states. For a mutation tool 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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each add distinct value: stating the core action, providing usage guidance with sibling differentiation, and giving UI context. There is no wasted text, and the most critical information (what the tool does and when to use it) appears first.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (all undocumented in schema), and an output schema exists, the description does well on purpose and usage but falls short on parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but for a publish operation that likely changes system state, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'entity_id', 'tenant_id', or 'web_action' represent, their formats, or how they affect the publish operation. The description mentions 'triggered/web campaign' which might relate to 'entity_id', but this is insufficient to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in both schema and description.

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 specific action ('Publish a triggered/web campaign via the CAMPAIGN_FLOW_DEFAULT workflow'), identifies the resource ('triggered/web campaign'), and explicitly distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('cdp_start_campaign only works for batch 'send now' runs'). This provides precise differentiation within the toolset.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('correct action for real-time/triggered campaigns (web, API, journey)') and when not to use it (contrasting with 'cdp_start_campaign' for batch runs). It also mentions the UI equivalent ('Mirrors what the Vega UI does when you click 'Publish''), giving clear context for appropriate usage.

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