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 doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the output schema contains. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body parameter adds minimal context but leaves major behavioral traits undocumented.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key parameter requirement. There is no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the core action, 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 an update operation with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (though its content is unknown), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, and parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct tool invocation despite the output schema's existence.

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 documentation. The description only mentions that 'updated fields' should be passed 'as a JSON string', which loosely corresponds to the 'body' parameter. It doesn't explain 'dispatch_id' (what identifies a dispatch), 'tenant_id' (optional context), or the structure/fields expected in the JSON body. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('a dispatch definition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_dispatch' and 'cdp_delete_dispatch' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a 'dispatch definition' entails or how it differs from similar resources like campaigns or schedules.

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 dispatch), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'cdp_update_campaign' or 'cdp_update_schedule'. The only implicit usage hint is that updates require a JSON string, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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