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 the tool creates a subscription, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The mention of a default for card_id adds minimal context, leaving critical behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the Args formatting could be more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic parameter semantics and the tool's purpose, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall it's adequate with clear room for improvement.

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 adds meaning by explaining that customer_id is a 'Conekta customer ID', plan_id is for 'the plan to subscribe to', and card_id is a 'Payment source ID' with a default behavior. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types, but doesn't detail formats, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps for the 3 parameters.

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 subscription') and the target ('for a customer'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' or 'create_customer' by focusing on subscriptions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_subscription' or 'cancel_subscription'.

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_subscription' or 'create_plan'. It mentions a default behavior for card_id, but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or typical workflows, 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.