Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't repeat. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that results are 'paginated' and 'sorted by creation date,' which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., no claim of mutation).

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: the first sentence states the core purpose and key feature (pagination), and the second adds sorting details. The bilingual repetition (English/Spanish) is redundant but doesn't add clutter beyond duplication. It's efficient with zero waste, though the repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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 idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It adds pagination and sorting context, which are useful. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return structure (e.g., fields in invoices), leaving a minor gap for a list 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%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional pagination,' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on default behavior or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'List all invoices with optional pagination.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('invoices'), and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular) and 'search_invoices' (filtered). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_clients' or 'list_expenses' beyond the resource name, which is inherent but not articulated.

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 by mentioning 'optional pagination' and sorting, suggesting it's for retrieving multiple invoices. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_invoices' (which likely allows filtering) or 'get_invoice' (for a single invoice). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on 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.