Conekta MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool creates a new order, implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., order ID returned). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Args:' section detailing each parameter. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the checkout examples are verbose). Overall, it efficiently conveys necessary information without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases). The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but other critical aspects like when to use versus siblings are missing, making it adequate but with 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed semantics for all 11 parameters, including examples for complex objects like 'checkout,' 'line_items,' and 'shipping_contact.' This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new order.' It specifies the resource (order) and the action (create), which is straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_checkout' or 'create_subscription,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context by explaining how to handle customer information (existing vs. new), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_checkout' or 'create_subscription.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in guidance.

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