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 mentions pagination and search features, which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear breakdown of parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination and search), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or auth needs, which are important for a read tool in a billing context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all four parameters (limit, search, next_page, previous_page), including ranges, defaults, and purposes. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting parameter usage.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscription plans'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_plan' (which retrieves a single plan) and 'create_plan' (which creates a plan). It also mentions optional search and pagination features, adding specificity.

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 implies usage for listing plans with optional filtering and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plan' for a single plan or 'list_subscriptions' for subscriptions. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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