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. It discloses that the tool triggers an execution (implying a write/mutation operation) and mentions optional parameters, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'trigger' entails (e.g., async/sync, job ID returned). It adds some context like body examples but misses critical behavioral traits 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific parameter guidance and examples. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains optional parameters, and the third provides essential body examples. No wasted words, and structure is logical for tool invocation.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well to explain key parameters and provide body examples. However, as a mutation tool with an output schema (implied by context signals), it lacks details on return values or execution results. It covers input semantics adequately but could benefit from mentioning output expectations or error cases.

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 fully. It effectively explains the semantics of entity_type/entity_id ('for scoped runs'), schedule_id ('for scheduled runs'), and body (with concrete examples like CAMPAIGN_FLOW_DEFAULT). It clarifies that workflow_id is required and other parameters are optional, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Trigger a workflow execution') and resource ('workflow'), distinguishing it from siblings like cdp_deploy_workflow or cdp_invoke_workflow_action. It explicitly mentions scoping options (entityType/entityId, scheduleId) and body parameter usage, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 clear context on when to use optional parameters (e.g., 'for scoped runs' or 'for scheduled runs') and gives examples of when body is required (CAMPAIGN_FLOW_DEFAULT, DATA_EXPORT_DEFAULT). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_start_campaign or cdp_run_data_export, which are also workflow-related siblings.

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