CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Restore' implies a mutation (undoing a deletion), the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether the restoration is immediate or asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., reactivating associated features), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Restore a soft-deleted mailer subuser') and includes the HTTP method and endpoint for context. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the response), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but 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 the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'POST /v2/{tenantId}/mailer/subusers/{id}', which hints that 'id' and 'tenant_id' are path parameters, but it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., subuser identifier) or when 'tenant_id' is required versus optional. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's 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 action ('Restore') and resource ('soft-deleted mailer subuser'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_delete_mailer_subuser' and 'cdp_create_mailer_subuser' by focusing on restoration of deleted items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_restore_mailer_account' or 'cdp_restore_emailable_page', which are similar restore operations on different resources.

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., that the subuser must be soft-deleted first), when restoration might fail, or what happens after restoration. Given the sibling tools include various mailer operations, explicit context for choosing this restore tool is missing.

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