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 indicates a mutation ('Restore') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., if the page becomes active again). The mention of 'soft-deleted' is useful context, but overall transparency is lacking for a mutation tool.

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 action. It wastes no words, though it includes the endpoint path ('POST /v2/{tenantId}/emailablepages/{id}') which may be redundant if the agent already has structural info. Overall, it's appropriately sized for 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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and error handling. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't guide the agent on what to expect, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'page_id' or 'tenant_id' represent, their formats, or that 'tenant_id' is optional with a default. The description repeats the endpoint path but provides no semantic clarity beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 verb ('Restore') and resource ('a soft-deleted emailable page'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_delete_emailable_page' and 'cdp_get_emailable_page' by focusing on restoration of deleted items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_create_emailable_page' or 'cdp_update_emailable_page' in terms of state transitions.

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., the page must be soft-deleted), when not to use it (e.g., for hard-deleted pages), or refer to sibling tools like 'cdp_delete_emailable_page' or 'cdp_list_emailable_pages' for context. Usage is implied only by the action name.

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