Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context about pagination behavior ('optional pagination') and the business meaning of quotes ('proposals sent to clients before they become invoices'), which helps the agent understand the tool's operational characteristics beyond the 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 appropriately sized with two sentences (one English, one Spanish) that each earn their place. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, though the bilingual approach adds some redundancy. No wasted words, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 (list operation with pagination), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what quotes are in this system and mentions pagination. The main gap is lack of output format information (no output schema provided).

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 parameter documentation. The description mentions 'optional pagination' which aligns with the limit/offset parameters in the schema, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the structured fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('quotes/estimates') with specific scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_quote' (single) and 'search_invoices' (different resource) by emphasizing comprehensive listing. The bilingual explanation adds clarity about what quotes are in this context.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('List all quotes/estimates') and implicitly distinguishes from 'get_quote' (single) and 'search_invoices' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'list_invoices' for post-conversion items.

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