ManyContacts MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified configuration fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Update a WhatsApp AI agent's configuration') and includes examples. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from examples).

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, or output details. Given the complexity of updating configurations, the description is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 documents all parameters (id, active, block_1, block_2, block_3) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'instructions, active status, etc.', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Update') and resource ('WhatsApp AI agent's configuration'), with examples of what can be updated ('instructions, active status, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manycontacts_ai_agents_get' or 'manycontacts_ai_agents_list', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing agent ID), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'manycontacts_ai_agents_get' for retrieval or 'manycontacts_ai_agents_feedback' for other operations.

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