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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get usage/event data') and mentions key optional filters. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially be structured to separate purpose from filtering details more clearly.

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 complexity of a data retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'usage/event data' entails, how results are formatted, whether there are limitations on date ranges, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed 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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions optional filtering by event name and date range, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 usage/event data for a Custify account' with optional filtering by event name and date range. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('usage/event data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_trends' which might provide similar data in a different format or scope.

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 mentions optional filtering but doesn't compare it to sibling tools like 'get_usage_trends' or explain scenarios where one would be preferred over the other. No prerequisites 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.