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. While it mentions pagination parameters ('next_page', 'previous_page'), it doesn't describe the tool's behavior regarding rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no subscriptions exist for a customer. The description lacks crucial operational context for a listing tool with pagination capabilities.

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 organized parameter documentation. The Args section uses bullet-like formatting that's easy to parse. While efficient, the purpose statement could be slightly more informative about the tool's scope or typical use cases to be perfectly front-loaded.

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 (which handles return values), no annotations, and 4 parameters with good documentation in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, for a listing tool with pagination, it should ideally mention typical response structure or behavior patterns. The description covers the basics but lacks operational context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 provides detailed parameter information in the Args section, including the purpose of each parameter, range constraints for 'limit' (1-250), and default values. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that 'customer_id' is required, though this is clear from the schema's required field.

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 subscriptions for a customer.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions') with a scope ('for a customer'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subscription' or 'list_customers', which would require more specific context about what makes this listing operation unique.

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_subscription' (for single subscription details) or 'list_customers' (for listing customers instead of their subscriptions). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this tool is preferred over other listing operations in the system.

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