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 this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing order data not mentioned. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure with a clear header for arguments is efficient. However, the metadata example '{"key":"value"}' is minimal and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and deeper parameter semantics. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, this leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'order_id' identifies the target order, and 'metadata' is an object with key-value pairs. However, it doesn't explain metadata constraints, format examples, or how updates merge with existing data, leaving significant gaps.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('an existing order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_order' or 'cancel_order' by focusing on modification rather than creation or cancellation. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of an order can be updated beyond metadata.

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 like 'update_customer' or 'update_subscription'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing order ID), nor does it clarify use cases or constraints compared to other order-related tools like 'capture_order' or 'cancel_order'.

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