Conekta MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send a payment link via SMS') but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but unconfirmed), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the SMS content includes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently lists parameters. It avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose; overall, it is appropriately sized 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 complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but other gaps remain, making it just adequate for basic use.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'checkout_id' corresponds to a 'Conekta checkout ID' (implying a payment link) and specifies the format for 'phone' ('E.164 format'), clarifying usage that the schema alone does not provide. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could detail the SMS content or link behavior further.

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 specific action ('Send a payment link via SMS') and identifies the resource ('payment link' via 'checkout_id'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_checkout_email' by specifying the SMS channel. It uses a precise verb ('Send') and resource type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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, such as 'send_checkout_email' for email-based delivery or other checkout-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only basic parameter information without usage scenarios.

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