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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'requests' erasure (implying it may be asynchronous or require approval) but doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how the request is processed, or what happens after submission. For a GDPR/CCPA compliance tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from parameter instructions, and it lacks completeness which affects its effectiveness despite being concise.

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 (GDPR/CCPA compliance operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters (one required), the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address critical aspects like legal implications, response format hints, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 mentions that the 'body' parameter should contain 'erasure request as a JSON string' and that customers can be identified by 'identityHash or email', but doesn't explain what fields the JSON should contain, provide examples, or clarify the optional 'tenant_id' parameter. This leaves critical parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Request GDPR/CCPA data erasure') and target ('for a customer'), specifying it can be done by identityHash or email. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_data_erasure_request' (which deletes requests) and 'cdp_get_data_erasure_status' (which checks status), but could be more explicit about this being a request initiation versus other data erasure operations.

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 like 'cdp_delete_data_erasure_request' or 'cdp_update_data_erasure_request', nor does it mention prerequisites, legal considerations, or typical workflows. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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