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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body parameter adds some context but is insufficient 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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key parameter requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond 'body', and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 details. The description only clarifies that 'body' should be a 'JSON string' with updated fields, but it doesn't explain the purpose of 'cubic_set_def_id' or 'tenant_id', their formats, or what fields can be updated in the JSON. This leaves two of three parameters largely undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing CubicSetDef by ID'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cdp_create_cubic_set_def' (create) and 'cdp_delete_cubic_set_def' (delete). However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'cdp_update_audience_def') beyond the resource name, which is why it's not a perfect 5.

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 CubicSetDef ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'cdp_copy_cubic_set_def' or 'cdp_get_cubic_set_def', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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