Conekta 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 'Cancel an order' but doesn't explain what cancellation entails—whether it's reversible, requires specific permissions, triggers refunds, affects inventory, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Cancel an order.'), followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, the Args section formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'order_id: The Conekta order ID to cancel'. This clarifies that 'order_id' refers to a Conekta-specific identifier, which is valuable since schema coverage is 0% and the schema only provides a generic title 'Order Id'. The description compensates well for the low 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 action ('Cancel') and resource ('an order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_checkout' and 'cancel_subscription' by specifying the order resource. However, it doesn't specify what 'cancel' entails operationally (e.g., refund, status change).

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., order must be in a cancellable state), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel after shipping), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_order' for status changes. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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