CDP MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The JSON string requirement is helpful but 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 - just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally efficient.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which the description doesn't reference), this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an execution summary group is, what fields can be updated, what the JSON format should be, or what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify what fields are updatable, the JSON structure, or the purpose of 'group_id' and 'tenant_id'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool updates an execution summary group, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other update tools in the sibling list (like cdp_update_execution_bucket or cdp_update_audience_def), nor does it specify what an 'execution summary group' actually is. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation and domain context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this update is appropriate, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. With many sibling tools including cdp_get_execution_summary_group and cdp_delete_execution_summary_group, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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