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 mentions the tool retrieves historical data with optional filtering, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data format, pagination, or error handling. 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get historical health score values/trends over time') and includes key details (specific metric, optional filtering). There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is moderately complete for a read-only tool with full parameter documentation. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, limits) that would be crucial for an agent to use it effectively. It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 (health_score_id, account_id, limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the tool focuses on historical trends and optional account filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 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 action ('Get historical health score values/trends over time') and resource ('for a specific health score metric'), with optional filtering by account. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_health_scores' (likely current scores) and 'get_usage_data' (different data type), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 implies usage for historical trends of health scores, with optional account filtering. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_health_scores' (which might provide current scores) or 'get_usage_data' (which might be for different metrics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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