Custify MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes. The description is minimal and lacks context about the tool's operational characteristics.

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 any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'account_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive documentation.

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 ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('specific Custify account/company by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'search_accounts' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction.

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 like 'list_accounts' or 'search_accounts'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from the tool name alone.

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