Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds context about webhooks sending HTTP POST notifications for events, which is useful behavioral detail not in annotations. No contradiction with 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 the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about webhook functionality. However, the bilingual repetition (English/Spanish) slightly reduces efficiency without adding new 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?

For a list operation with comprehensive annotations (read-only, safe) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what webhooks do. Without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning return format, but the annotations and purpose clarity compensate well.

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%, fully documenting 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 'all configured webhooks', specifying they send HTTP POST notifications for events in Frihet. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_webhook' (singular) and 'create_webhook' (creation).

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 webhook configurations but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_webhook' or 'search_invoices'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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