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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update a mailer batch' and includes the HTTP method (PUT), implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 that directly state the tool's action and parameter format, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context, relying too heavily on the output schema and leaving the agent under-informed for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Pass the updated definition as a JSON string,' which hints at the 'body' parameter's content but does not explain the 'id' or 'tenant_id' parameters, their formats, or relationships. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 batch'), and includes the HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint path, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like 'cdp_update_mailer_account' or 'cdp_update_mailer_subuser', which reduces clarity in 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, such as 'cdp_create_mailer_batch' for creation or 'cdp_get_mailer_batch' for retrieval. It mentions the endpoint but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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