CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'JSON string' for the body adds some context, but overall, critical behavioral information is missing for a mutation tool.

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—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Update an emailable page') and adds necessary technical detail (HTTP endpoint and JSON requirement). Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral risks, or usage context. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the conciseness is appropriate for the provided information, making it minimally adequate but 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 mentions 'updated definition as a JSON string' which loosely maps to the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'page_id' or 'tenant_id' are, their formats, or provide examples. With 3 parameters (2 required) and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond implying JSON usage for 'body'.

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 emailable page'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_emailable_page' and 'cdp_delete_emailable_page' by specifying it's an update operation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'cdp_update_campaign') 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 page), exclusions, or when to choose other tools like 'cdp_create_emailable_page' for creation or 'cdp_get_emailable_page' for retrieval. The HTTP method hint (PUT) is technical but doesn't offer practical usage context.

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