Lists all the available telecommunications bundles
Lists all the available telecommunications bundles @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lists', implying a read operation, but does not describe error behavior, pagination, authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, or any side effects.
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 main sentence 'Lists all the available telecommunications bundles' is repeated verbatim twice, which is redundant and wastes space. The @param and @return blocks are useful, but the duplication harms conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description conveys the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it and does not describe the return format in detail, relying on the output schema which is not shown. The duplication also detracts from completeness.
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 @param line clearly explains the api_key parameter as 'The api key allocated to your application', while the input schema provides no description for this parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, this explanation fully compensates.
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 'Lists all the available telecommunications bundles' uses a specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'telecommunications bundles', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netfluid__telco_accounts by focusing on bundles.
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 usage when you need to see available bundles, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
Several tools have overlapping or identical purposes (e.g., netfluid__session and netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__email and netfluid__send_email). With 142 tools spanning wallet, crypto, funding, and paywall features, distinguishing between similar account/crypto/balance tools requires careful reading of descriptions.
Most tools follow a snake_case pattern with a netfluid__ or paywall__ prefix, but there are inconsistencies like netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__netfluid_voucher_check, and single-noun tools (netfluid__skill, netfluid__fees). The two namespaces use slightly different conventions, making the overall set feel less uniform.
At 142 tools, this is an extremely large surface for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive financial platform, this exceeds practical usability and likely includes duplicates or overly granular operations.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations including account management, crypto transactions, funding methods, withdrawals, and paywall subscriptions. However, the presence of duplicate tools suggests redundancy rather than a clean, minimal complete surface, and some workflows may require chaining many tools.