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 retrieves a plan by ID, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the plan ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly (e.g., as part of the main description).

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it lacks context on usage scenarios, error cases, and operational constraints, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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: 'plan_id: The Conekta plan ID.' The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles like 'Plan Id'), so this compensates by specifying the ID is from Conekta and relates to a plan. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., string pattern) or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a subscription plan by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('subscription plan'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_plans' (which lists multiple plans) and 'create_plan' (which creates a new plan). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_customer'), though the resource type is clear.

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_plan' instead of 'list_plans' (e.g., for retrieving details of a specific known plan ID) or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid plan ID). The context is implied but not stated explicitly.

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