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 adds important context about API limitations ('may not work as expected — the underlying alerts API has limited support'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't describe response format, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with a version limitation warning that may distract from the core functionality. The main purpose statement is clear but could be more concise. The two-sentence structure is reasonable, but the warning takes up significant space relative to the functional description.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It mentions API limitations (helpful) but doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by status' which aligns with the 'status' parameter in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get alerts/signals from Custify for a specific account, optionally filtered by status.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('alerts/signals'), and scope ('for a specific account'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'get_contacts' beyond the resource type.

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. While it mentions optional filtering by status, it doesn't explain when to use this tool over other sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'search_accounts' for alert-related queries. The version limitation note is a warning, not usage guidance.

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