Vaultix 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to cancel a charge but doesn't describe what 'cancel' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it triggers notifications, or if there are side effects like updating related records). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and impact.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Cancel a pending or authorized charge'). It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), expected outcomes, or how it fits into broader workflows with siblings. For a charge cancellation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Charge ID to cancel'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Cancel') and resource ('a pending or authorized charge'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vaultix_create_charge' or 'vaultix_get_charge' by specifying cancellation rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'vaultix_cancel_payout', which targets a different resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., charge must be in a cancellable state), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed charges), or comparisons to siblings like 'vaultix_create_refund' for handling non-pending charges. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.

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