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. It mentions pagination behavior (cursors for next/previous pages) which is valuable, but doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like. For a listing tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a well-organized 'Args:' section with bullet-like clarity. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the most important purpose statement first.

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 there's an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The parameter semantics are fully covered, and the purpose is clear. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could benefit from more behavioral context and usage guidance to be fully complete.

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 fully compensate - which it does excellently. The 'Args:' section provides complete semantic documentation for all 4 parameters: 'limit' with range and default, 'search' with what fields it searches, and 'next_page'/'previous_page' explaining they're cursors from previous responses. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'List customers with optional search and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('customers'), and mentions key capabilities (search, pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_customer' or 'list_orders', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'get_customer' (for retrieving a single customer) or explain when search/pagination is appropriate versus other listing tools. The only implicit guidance is that it's for listing customers, but no explicit usage context is provided.

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