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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's trigger mechanism constraints and API limitations, though it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens after triggering (e.g., asynchronous execution, notifications).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage constraints. There is zero wasted text and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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's moderate complexity (triggering automated workflows), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose and constraints. However, it doesn't describe what happens after triggering (success/failure indicators, response format, or execution behavior), leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 specific action ('Trigger a manually-started Custify playbook') on a specific resource ('on a specific account'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which involve creating, getting, listing, updating, or searching data rather than triggering automated workflows.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only playbooks with trigger type "manually started" can be triggered via the API') and when not to use it ('segment-based and event-based playbooks run automatically and cannot be triggered this way'), providing clear alternatives and exclusions.

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