Custify MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (searching), but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or what format the results take. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (account objects? minimal data?), how results are ordered, or whether there are limitations like partial matches. For a search tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions searching 'by name or domain' which aligns with the query parameter's purpose, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: searching Custify accounts/companies by name or domain. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'accounts/companies', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_accounts' which might serve a similar listing function without search capabilities.

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. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'get_account', nor any context about when search is preferred over direct retrieval. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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