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 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing subscription settings not mentioned (e.g., billing cycle), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. It mentions 'New plan ID' and 'New payment source ID' but doesn't clarify if these replace existing values or are optional updates.

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 sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information. No sentences are wasted, though it could be more efficient by integrating parameter semantics into the main description.

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 annotations are absent, schema coverage is 0%, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: no error handling, side effects, or integration with sibling tools. For a subscription update with financial implications, this is a significant gap.

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 all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles (e.g., 'Conekta customer ID' specifies the system). However, it doesn't explain that plan_id and card_id are optional (as indicated by null defaults in schema) or provide format examples, 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 ('Update') and resource ('a subscription'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_customer' or 'update_order' beyond the resource name, and it doesn't specify what aspects of a subscription can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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 'cancel_subscription', 'pause_subscription', or 'resume_subscription'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a subscription must exist) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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