Conekta MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't clarify whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 brief with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and its single parameter. The 'Args:' section is clearly formatted. However, the second sentence could be more integrated rather than appearing as a separate documentation block.

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 this is a simple retrieval tool with one required parameter and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. The combination of clear purpose, parameter explanation, and structured output schema makes this reasonably complete for its complexity level.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the parameter name and specifies it's 'The Conekta event ID', which provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements, validation rules, or where to obtain event IDs.

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 ('Get') and resource ('an event by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list_events by specifying retrieval of a single event rather than listing multiple events. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other get_* tools like get_order or get_customer beyond the resource type.

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 when to use get_event versus list_events, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid event ID. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter alone.

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