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 states it's an update operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool affecting user data, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema explanation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, parameter meanings, or what constitutes a successful update. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) means return values might be documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't reference this.

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 only parameter names and types without meaning. The description mentions 'user's details' but doesn't explain what the six parameters represent (e.g., user_id identifies the target, others are optional fields to update). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 CDP user's details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_user' by specifying it's for existing users, though it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'cdp_update_client' or 'cdp_update_role' beyond the user focus.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing user_id), exclusions, or compare it to similar update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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