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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions that updated fields should be passed as a JSON string, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Update an existing entity', 'Pass updated fields as a JSON string') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like authentication requirements, error conditions, and full parameter semantics, making it inadequate 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 description must compensate but only partially does. It explains that 'body' should contain 'updated fields as a JSON string', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Body' title. However, it doesn't clarify 'resource_name', 'resource_id', or 'tenant_id', leaving three of four parameters with minimal context.

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 ('existing entity in a DW resource'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_entity' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'cdp_update_campaign', 'cdp_update_user') beyond the entity 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'cdp_create_entity' or 'cdp_get_entity'. Usage is implied only by the action of updating an existing entity.

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