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 creates a plan but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., plan activation). The description does not add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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: the purpose is stated first, followed by a structured list of parameters. Each parameter explanation is concise and directly relevant. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and bullet-like indentation is slightly informal but still clear.

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 no annotations, 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's focus on inputs is acceptable, but overall completeness is limited by missing usage and transparency details.

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. It provides clear semantics for all 7 parameters: name, amount (in cents), currency (ISO code), interval (with examples), frequency (default value), trial_period_days, and expiry_count. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, explaining units, formats, and defaults.

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 subscription plan.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('subscription plan'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_checkout' or 'create_order,' which are also creation tools in the same domain.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a customer or company context), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_checkout' or 'create_subscription.' Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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