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 discloses that the tool sends a specific body payload ('{"dataExportProperties":"{}"}') to match UI contracts, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, expected response format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely triggers data processing, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial implementation detail about the payload. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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 likely triggers a data export (a potentially significant operation), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (permissions, side effects), and doesn't leverage the output schema to describe what results to expect. The description feels like internal developer notes rather than agent guidance.

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 doesn't mention either parameter ('export_id' or 'tenant_id') or explain their purpose. The description focuses on the fixed payload sent, not the inputs. With 2 parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing about what values to provide and why.

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 ('Execute a data export immediately') and specifies the resource ('via the DATA_EXPORT_DEFAULT workflow'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_data_export' (creation) and 'cdp_update_data_export' (modification) by focusing on immediate execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_run_workflow' which might be a more general alternative.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Equivalent to clicking 'Send Now' in the Vega Data Export UI,' suggesting it's for triggering an existing export. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives like 'cdp_schedule_data_export' (if it existed) or 'cdp_run_workflow' for non-default workflows. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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