CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it's a real-time update via POST. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it overwrites or merges data, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, avoiding redundancy. However, it could be more structured by separating endpoint details from usage instructions, and the parentheses around the endpoint slightly clutter the flow.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth), parameter guidance, and sibling differentiation, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 param details. The description only mentions passing 'profile update data as a JSON string', which loosely maps to the 'body' parameter but doesn't explain its structure, required fields, or examples. It ignores the 'tenant_id' parameter entirely, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('customer profile attributes'), specifying it's for real-time updates via a POST endpoint. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_campaign' or 'cdp_update_user', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or related tools for reading profiles (like 'cdp_get_customer_360'), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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