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 mentions the HTTP method (PUT) and that a JSON string is required, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing subuser data not included in the update. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides implementation details. There's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and implementation method but lacks details about parameters, behavioral constraints, and usage context that would make it fully complete for a mutation tool.

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,' but provides no details about what fields the definition should include, format expectations, or examples. The 'id' and 'tenant_id' parameters aren't explained at all. This leaves most parameter semantics 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 ('mailer subuser') with specific HTTP method and endpoint details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_mailer_subuser' and 'cdp_delete_mailer_subuser' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the same domain (e.g., 'cdp_update_mailer_account').

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing subuser ID), constraints, or typical use cases. While the sibling list shows related tools, the description itself offers no comparative context.

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