Rebillia 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'POST /currencies', implying a write operation that creates a new resource, but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling (e.g., duplicate currencyId), or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created currency object). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Create a company currency'). The subsequent details (endpoint and parameters) are relevant but could be more efficiently integrated. It avoids redundancy, though the parameter list slightly duplicates schema info without adding value.

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 (a mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., what 'fixedRate' implies for future conversions). For a creation tool in a financial context, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, with each parameter documented in the schema (currencyId, conversionRate, fixedRate). The description repeats these parameters but adds minimal extra meaning—it clarifies they are 'required' (already implied by the schema's required array) and provides the endpoint 'POST /currencies'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding substantial param-specific context.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a company currency'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_currency' or 'delete_currency' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create_' tools (e.g., 'create_customer', 'create_product'), which share the same verb pattern.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the currency must not already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_currencies' for viewing or 'update_currency' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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