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 lacks behavioral details. It states it's an update operation but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. This is inadequate 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—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool as an update operation but lacks details on parameters, behavior, and usage context, making it only partially adequate.

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 adds minimal value. It mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' for the 'body' parameter, but doesn't explain the JSON structure, what fields are updatable, or the purpose of 'tenant_id'. This leaves key 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 ('a message definition by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_message_def' (create) and 'cdp_delete_message_def' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'cdp_update_campaign').

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 (e.g., needing an existing message definition), exclusions, or compare it to similar update tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.

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