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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a write operation ('Execute/run'), mentions a backend contract requirement (empty body to avoid 400 errors), and specifies parameter usage ('Set cohort=True for cohort campaigns'). However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (purpose, parameter guidance, alternative tool). It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (a campaign execution tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and alternatives. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks details on error conditions or side effects, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 significant semantic value: explains that entity_id is 'the campaign def resourceId', clarifies cohort usage ('Set cohort=True for cohort campaigns'), and mentions that an empty body is automatically sent. This provides crucial context beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute/run a campaign immediately ('send now').' It specifies the verb ('execute/run'), resource ('campaign'), and timing ('immediately'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning when to use cdp_publish_web_campaign instead for triggered/web campaigns.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool ('send now' campaigns) and when not to use it ('For triggered/web campaigns use cdp_publish_web_campaign instead'). It also mentions prerequisites ('Requires entity_id') and distinguishes it from alternatives, making it highly actionable.

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