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 only states the action ('Get order details'), without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though minor improvements could enhance readability.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details that would be helpful for an agent in a context with many sibling tools.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'order_id' refers to 'The Conekta order ID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or pattern.

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: 'Get order details by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('order details'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'update_order', 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_orders' for multiple orders or 'update_order' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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