Custify MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get contacts/people,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated (though parameters suggest it), what the output format is, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage, earning a perfect score for 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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error handling), output format, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use by an AI agent is insufficient, especially for a read operation that might involve multiple results.

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%, with clear documentation for 'account_id', 'limit', and 'offset'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'contacts/people' entails or how parameters interact. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'contacts/people associated with a Custify account.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' (singular) and 'get_account' by specifying it retrieves multiple contacts linked to an account. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-like tools (e.g., 'list_accounts'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_contacts' over 'get_contact' (singular), 'search_accounts', or other sibling tools. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an account ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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