CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a destructive action ('Stop/kill', 'kill signal') which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether the stop is immediate or graceful, if it's reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 short phrases) with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. Every element ('Stop/kill', 'running campaign by ID', 'workflow kill signal') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (existence noted but content unknown), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter semantics, usage context, behavioral details, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain results. The tool's complexity warrants more comprehensive 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 mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the 'campaign_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter at all or provide any format/constraint details for either parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 ('Stop/kill') and target ('a running campaign by ID'), with the additional detail 'Sends a workflow kill signal' providing specific mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_start_campaign' and 'cdp_kill_job' by focusing on campaigns rather than jobs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 like 'cdp_kill_job' or 'cdp_suspend_job', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be running) or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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