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 requires authentication, rate limits, what happens on errors, or the format/structure of returned orders. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral context, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, rate limits) and doesn't mention the existence of an output schema. For a tool with siblings and no annotations, it should provide more contextual guidance.

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 compensate fully. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains 'limit' range and default, clarifies 'search' scope (email, reference), enumerates 'payment_status' values (paid, pending, refunded), and explains cursor parameters for pagination. This adds substantial meaning 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 orders with optional filters and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('orders'), and mentions key capabilities (filtering, pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_order' (singular retrieval) or 'list_charges' (different resource), which prevents 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. With siblings like 'get_order' (singular retrieval) and 'list_charges' (different resource type), the agent receives no help in choosing between them. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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