AutoPeças MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the external API dependency (Twilio), mentions the 160-character limit for simple SMS (though schema also covers this), and provides a concrete use case example ('Avisar por SMS que UTI-05 foi liberada'). This goes beyond what annotations convey about the tool's operational characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, args, examples) and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly with the parameter explanations.

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 (external API integration, environment dependencies) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters with examples, and behavioral context, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema properties have descriptions but the overall param object doesn't), the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains both parameters (destinatario and mensagem) with format examples and constraints, effectively compensating for the schema gap. The example further illustrates proper parameter usage.

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 ('Envia SMS via Twilio REST API') and resource (SMS messages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'leitos_enviar_notificacao' which might use different notification channels. The description explicitly names the equivalent node in another system, further clarifying its purpose.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for sending SMS via Twilio) and mentions specific environment variable prerequisites (TWILIO_ACCOUNT_SID, TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN, TWILIO_FROM_NUMBER). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, though the context suggests it's for SMS specifically versus other notification methods.

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