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. It adds some behavioral context by detailing the filter format and providing examples, but it does not disclose key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description compensates partially but leaves gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The filter examples are detailed but necessary for clarity. It avoids redundancy, though the filter format explanation could be slightly more streamlined. Overall, most sentences earn their place in aiding tool selection.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers filter usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like read/write nature, error handling, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns or its operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filter format with examples and referencing 'list_attributes' for field discovery, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions. However, it does not provide additional semantics for other parameters like sorting or pagination.

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: 'List Custify accounts/companies with optional filters.' It specifies the resource (accounts/companies) and verb (list), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_accounts' by emphasizing the filter format and referencing 'list_attributes' for field discovery, making it specific and differentiated.

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 clear context for usage by explaining the filter format and referencing 'list_attributes' to discover fields. It implies when to use this tool (for listing with structured filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_accounts' from the sibling list, which could enhance guidance further.

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