FineData 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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: batch processing capability (up to 100 URLs), parallel execution for speed, and webhook notification upon completion. It also mentions return values (batch_id and job_ids), though it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of benefits and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's behavior and parameters. However, it lacks details on error cases, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are important for a batch processing tool with potential complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the benefits related to parameters: 'Submit up to 100 URLs at once' clarifies the urls parameter limit, 'Parallel processing for speed' implies performance aspects, and 'Single webhook notification when all complete' relates to callback_url usage, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scrape multiple URLs in a single batch request.' It specifies the verb ('scrape'), resource ('URLs'), and scope ('multiple'/'batch'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scrape_url (single URL) and scrape_async (asynchronous single).

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 for when to use this tool: for batch processing of up to 100 URLs with parallel speed and single notification. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use scrape_url for single URLs), though the sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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