server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so effectively. It discloses the one-company-per-process-lifetime binding, the relevant environment variables (ABRAFLEXI_URL/ABRAFLEXI_COMPANY), and the fact that all other tools' results already belong to that company. It also signals read-only behavior through the 'Report' verb and the 'read_only' field.

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 purpose, followed by binding context, usage guidance, and return format in three compact paragraphs. Each sentence carries distinct information: identity, configuration, relationship to other tools, when to call, and output contents.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description is complete: it says what it returns (abraflexi_url, company, read_only), when to call it, and why the concept matters. Nothing an agent would need to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the empty input schema already makes that obvious, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the configuration variables and the returned fields, though no parameter-specific explanation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which AbraFlexi company/instance this MCP server session is bound to.' It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining the server is bound to exactly one company for its whole lifetime, which no other listed tool appears to cover.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this tool first whenever the identity of "the company" matters to the request' and steers away from the alternative of inferring it from record fields such as an invoice's customer/supplier name. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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