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. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what validation occurs, or what happens to the instance during update. The mention of JSON string format 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose - the first states the action, the second provides technical implementation detail. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the technical endpoint reference could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's decision-making.

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 complex sibling context (200+ tools), the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't explain what constitutes a 'provisioned instance' in this system, what fields are modifiable, or what the typical update scenarios are. Given the complexity, more context is needed.

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 for all 3 parameters, the description must compensate but fails to do so adequately. It mentions 'Pass update body as JSON string' which partially explains the 'body' parameter, but doesn't clarify what fields the JSON should contain, what 'instance_id' refers to, or when 'tenant_id' is required. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.

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 'Modify a provisioned instance' which provides a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'cdp_update_campaign' or 'cdp_update_user' - it's just another generic 'update' operation in a large family of update tools. The description is vague about what specific aspects of a provisioned instance can be modified.

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. With 200+ sibling tools including many other update operations, there's no indication of when this specific provision instance update is appropriate versus other update tools or versus creation/deletion operations. The mention of 'PUT /provisions/instances/{id}' is technical implementation detail, not usage guidance.

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