Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return data (contact info, tax IDs, addresses) and pagination behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or other constraints beyond annotations.

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 key information (action, resource, pagination, return data) in a single bilingual sentence. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy but does not significantly detract from clarity, keeping it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (list operation), rich annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies return data and pagination, but could improve by mentioning sorting, filtering, or error handling to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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%, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional pagination', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 ('List all clients/customers'), specifies the resource ('clients/customers'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_client' (single client) and 'search_invoices' (different resource). The bilingual format reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 retrieving multiple clients with pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_client' (single client) or 'search_invoices' (different resource). It provides clear context for listing but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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