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 mentions that folder_id 'matches UI save behaviour, which always sends ?folderId=...', which adds some context about default behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like permission requirements, whether updates are partial or complete, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both packed with relevant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, while the second provides specific parameter guidance. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 that this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and some parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and full parameter documentation. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 explains that 'body' should contain 'updated fields as a JSON string' and that 'folder_id' moves the campaign into a folder, matching UI behavior. However, it doesn't clarify 'campaign_id' (presumably identifies which campaign to update) or 'tenant_id' (purpose unclear). The description adds value for two parameters but leaves two undocumented, resulting in partial compensation.

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 ('an existing campaign definition'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from creation tools (like 'cdp_create_campaign') by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (like 'cdp_update_audience_def') beyond the resource type.

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 campaign), compare with sibling update tools, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate versus creating a new campaign or using other campaign-related tools.

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