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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if IDs are invalid. The description doesn't mention that this is a safe read operation or provide any behavioral 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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient with minimal waste. However, the parameter documentation could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 that an output schema exists (which will document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about authentication, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The current description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 basic semantics by explaining that 'customer_id' is 'The Conekta customer ID' and 'subscription_id' is 'The subscription ID', which clarifies what these identifiers represent. However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or where to find these 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 tool's purpose as 'Get subscription details' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions' (which returns multiple) and 'create_subscription' (which creates new ones). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_subscription' or 'cancel_subscription' which might also return details.

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_subscription' versus 'list_subscriptions' (for multiple subscriptions) or 'get_customer' (which might include subscription info). No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations are provided.

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