MCP RifaExpress Backend

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. It describes a read operation ('obtiene') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no companies match the filters. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 in Spanish that directly states the purpose and key feature (optional filters). It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance would improve completeness, but it's minimally viable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'filtros opcionales de subscriptionStatus', aligning with the schema's 'subscriptionStatus' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning of the enum values (active, inactive, past_due) or the 'limit' parameter's default behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter 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 'obtiene' (gets/retrieves) and the resource 'companies (empresas)', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rifaexpress_get_plans or rifaexpress_get_users by specifying it retrieves companies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with rifaexpress_query_db or rifaexpress_inspect_table, which might also retrieve company data, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 'filtros opcionales de subscriptionStatus' (optional subscriptionStatus filters), which implies usage for filtering by subscription status, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rifaexpress_query_db for more complex queries or rifaexpress_get_subscriptions for subscription-specific data. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are stated.

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