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 the tool captures a payment, implying a financial transaction, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether this finalizes the order), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a payment-related tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (payment capture with financial implications), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are important for safe operation. The output schema mitigates some gaps by documenting return values.

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 by specifying it's a 'Conekta order ID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could benefit from examples or constraints (e.g., ID format).

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 ('capture') and resource ('pre-authorized order payment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_order' or 'update_order' which also involve order operations, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific capture action is needed versus other order-related tools.

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., that the order must be pre-authorized), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'update_order', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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