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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to fields not included in the update. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the action and parameter format. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with essential parameter guidance.

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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, and parameter details needed for safe invocation of an update operation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify what fields can be updated, the JSON structure, or the purpose of 'audience_def_id' and 'tenant_id'. It adds some meaning but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing audience definition'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_create_audience_def (creation) and cdp_delete_audience_def (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like cdp_update_campaign. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing audience definition ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools in the sibling list (e.g., cdp_update_campaign, cdp_update_report_def). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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