Conekta MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'custom reference for your system' hints at integration but lacks depth.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are necessary given low schema coverage, but the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like structure is slightly verbose yet still efficient.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like error cases or system impacts. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing a format example for phone ('E.164 format'). This clarifies semantics that the schema alone doesn't capture.

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 ('Create a new customer') and identifies the resource ('customer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_customer' or 'list_customers', which would require a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_customer' or 'list_customers'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for creation, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.