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 states the action ('Resume') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens upon resumption (e.g., billing restart, service reactivation), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly, and the lack of behavioral details means it's concise but potentially under-specified.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks context on prerequisites, effects, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference.

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. It lists both parameters with brief explanations ('Conekta customer ID', 'subscription ID to resume'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., ID structure), sourcing (e.g., from get_subscription), or validation rules, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 verb ('Resume') and resource ('a paused subscription'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause_subscription' and 'cancel_subscription' by specifying the action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'resume' entails (e.g., restarting billing, reactivating services), 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., subscription must be paused), exclusions (e.g., cannot resume canceled subscriptions), or compare with siblings like 'update_subscription' for other modifications. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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