MCP RifaExpress Backend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the table existence condition, which adds some context about potential failure modes, but doesn't describe what happens when the table doesn't exist, what permissions are required, whether this is a read-only operation, what format results are returned in, or any pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 brief but contains irrelevant implementation details about 'Fase 1 del SaaS Core' that don't help an AI agent understand how to use the tool. The first sentence is functional but the second sentence adds no value for tool selection or invocation. It's not optimally front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subscriptions' are in this context, what data is returned, how results are structured, or what happens when filters are applied. The mention of table existence hints at potential failure modes but doesn't provide complete guidance for an AI 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or add context about how filtering works. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'obtains subscriptions' which provides a basic verb+resource, but it's vague about scope and adds confusing implementation details about table existence and SaaS phases. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like rifaexpress_get_companies or rifaexpress_get_plans, which follow similar patterns.

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. While it mentions 'if the table exists' as a conditional, this is an implementation detail rather than usage guidance. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other query or list tools on the server.

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