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. It states the tool sends an email, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether emails are queued or sent immediately), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description is incomplete. It partially explains parameters but misses behavioral context and full parameter semantics, making it inadequate 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 adds some meaning by explaining email_type with examples (support, alert, notification) and specifying that email details should be passed as a JSON string, which clarifies the body parameter. However, it does not explain the tenant_id parameter or provide details on JSON structure, leaving gaps for 3 parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Send an email of a specific type', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Send') and resource ('email'), but lacks detail on what 'email of a specific type' entails beyond examples (support, alert, notification). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, as no other email-related tools are listed among siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions email_type examples but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or how it differs from other tools in the system.

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