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. It mentions 'Update' (implying mutation) and that fields are passed as JSON, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial/full, validation behavior, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with a brief parameter note. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema (from context signals) means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden slightly. Still, for a mutation tool, more behavioral and parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'ID' (implied for 'squery_def_id') and 'updated fields as a JSON string' (implied for 'body'), but doesn't explain the JSON structure, purpose of 'tenant_id', or any constraints. With 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate 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 ('existing SQueryDef by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_squery_def' (create) and 'cdp_delete_squery_def' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'cdp_update_audience_def' or 'cdp_update_campaign' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SQueryDef ID), constraints, or when other tools like 'cdp_copy_squery_def' or 'cdp_clone_resource' might be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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