Find the Stripe API operation id for something you want to do, e.g. intent 'list' + resource 'invoices'. Use before stripe_api_read / stripe_api_write when you don't know the id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 5 | |
| intent | Yes | What to do, e.g. list, retrieve, create, refund | |
| resource | Yes | What to do it to, e.g. customer, subscription, payout |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the output is an operation id; it says nothing about match ranking, fuzzy vs exact matching on intent/resource, or what happens on zero results — behavior an agent would want for a search 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the sequencing guidance. Every clause earns its place with no 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?
With no output schema, the description does state that the return value is an operation id, and the schema fully covers the inputs. It is nearly complete for a simple two-keyword lookup; only the result shape (single id vs list of up to 5) is left implicit.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The example ('intent list + resource invoices') hints at lowercase verb/noun phrasing, but the description adds no real semantics beyond what the schema already documents for intent, resource, and limit.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Find the Stripe API operation id' — and immediately grounds it with a concrete example ('intent list + resource invoices'). It is clearly distinguishable from stripe_api_details and stripe_search_docs because it returns an operation id, not documentation or field detail.
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?
'Use before stripe_api_read / stripe_api_write when you don't know the id' gives an explicit trigger condition and names the downstream siblings. It stops short of explaining how this differs from the other lookup-flavored siblings (stripe_search_docs, stripe_api_details), leaving a small ambiguity.
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.
