xendit-mcp

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 a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., pagination, structure), leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List refunds') and adds necessary filtering details. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some parameters but lacks critical context like behavioral traits (e.g., safety, pagination), full parameter semantics, and return values. For a 4-parameter list tool with no structured support, this leaves too much undefined.

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 descriptions. The description adds value by naming three filter parameters ('payment_request_id', 'invoice_id', 'reference_id'), but it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide any details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. This partially compensates but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('refunds'), and specifies optional filtering parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'xendit_get_refund' (singular vs. plural), which could help an agent understand when to use this list operation versus retrieving a specific refund.

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 mentions optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'xendit_list_refunds' versus 'xendit_get_refund' (singular) or other list tools like 'xendit_list_invoices'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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