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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. The JSON string requirement is a parameter detail, not behavioral context.

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 (two clauses) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The HTTP endpoint detail is arguably extraneous for an AI agent but doesn't significantly bloat the text. It avoids repetition and stays focused, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (existence noted but content unknown), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update's impact, required inputs, error handling, or return values. The output schema's presence reduces the need to describe returns, but the description still misses crucial context about permissions, side effects, and parameter meanings.

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 only mentions that 'body' should be 'a JSON string' containing 'the updated definition', which adds minimal semantics for one of three parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (account identifier), what 'tenant_id' does (optional tenant context), or the structure/fields of the JSON definition. This leaves most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 mailer account'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_mailer_account' (create vs update) and 'cdp_get_mailer_account' (read vs update). However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the scope of changes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 account ID), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'cdp_update_mailer_batch' or 'cdp_update_mailer_subuser'. The HTTP method hint (PUT) is technical but doesn't constitute usage guidance for an AI agent.

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