CDP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the CDP backend may detach the schedule from its workflow if referenceId/entityType/entityId don't match, which is a critical behavioral warning. However, it doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action and endpoint, the second provides critical behavioral guidance. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and a key behavioral risk, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, and parameter specifics, relying on the output schema for return values.

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 3 parameters, the description adds some value: it explains that 'body' is a JSON string of the full schedule body and references cdp_create_schedule for the canonical shape. However, it doesn't clarify 'schedule_id' or 'tenant_id' semantics, nor does it detail the JSON structure or constraints, leaving parameters largely 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 tool updates an existing schedule row with specific HTTP method (PUT) and endpoint details. It distinguishes from cdp_create_schedule by referencing it for the canonical shape, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like cdp_update_audience_def or cdp_update_campaign among siblings.

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 implies usage when updating an existing schedule and references cdp_create_schedule for the body structure, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like cdp_deactivate_schedule or cdp_delete_schedule, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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