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. It discloses the return format ('field names, display names, and field types') and the tool's read-only, non-destructive nature through context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage context, all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, and return values. However, it could benefit from mentioning any limitations (e.g., pagination) or authentication requirements to be fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of choosing 'account' vs. 'contact'), but doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 with specific verbs ('List all available company/account attributes') and resources ('attributes'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its preparatory role for 'list_accounts' and 'filtering and sorting'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before building filters for list_accounts') and distinguishes it from alternatives by implying it's for discovery rather than direct data retrieval, unlike siblings like 'list_accounts' or 'search_accounts'.

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