CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It lacks details on permissions required, whether updates are partial or full, side effects (e.g., on dependent resources), rate limits, 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 two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and key parameter details. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and required parameters but lacks behavioral context, optional parameter explanation, and output details (though the output schema mitigates this). For a mutation tool, more guidance 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 description must compensate. It mentions 'widget_id' and 'body' (as a JSON string), covering the two required parameters, but doesn't explain 'tenant_id' (optional) or provide examples of valid JSON structures for 'body'. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('an existing widget by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_create_widget' and 'cdp_delete_widget' by specifying it's for updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing widget ID), exclusions (e.g., what fields can't be updated), or refer to related tools like 'cdp_get_widget' for fetching IDs or 'cdp_copy_widget' for duplication.

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