about_mib_for_developersWhat My Insure Bank is, what this MCP server can do, and how developers get their own MIB partner API key (sandbox instantly, live after business verification).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly conveys that this is an informational tool with no data mutation or complex side effects. It does not explicitly state what the response format looks like, but for an 'about' tool the implied read-only nature is sufficient.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently covers the three key topics. Every clause adds meaningful value with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple nature (0 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool is, what it explains, and the target audience, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it appropriately.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline score for 0-param tools is 4, and the description needs to add no parameter-level detail.
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 uses a clear informational scope: what MIB is, what the server does, and how to get an API key. This fully distinguishes it from the transactional sibling tools like list_insurance_products or compare_insurance_quotes.
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 the tool is an onboarding/orientation resource and explains the developer integration path. It does not explicitly state 'use this before other tools' or name alternatives, but the context makes the usage scenario unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: about_mib_for_developers is informational, compare_insurance_quotes and policy_checkup differ (new vs existing policies), get_quote_requirements provides inputs, get_buy_link generates purchase links, and list_insurance_products browses catalogs. No two tools overlap ambiguously.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare, get, list, about), but policy_checkup is noun_verb, and about_mib_for_developers is more descriptive. Minor inconsistency but still readable and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for insurance comparison and purchase. Each tool fills a necessary role without redundancy or bloat, fitting the typical 3-15 tool range.
The toolset covers the full workflow: requirements gathering, quote comparison, purchase link generation, product browsing, and existing policy analysis. No obvious missing operations for its stated purpose.