Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a write operation ('Create'), mentions the HTTP method (POST), and provides important context about prerequisites and credential requirements. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs that might be relevant for a gateway creation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core purpose, required/optional parameters, and crucial workflow guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, prerequisites, parameter guidance, and workflow. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns upon successful creation, which would be helpful given there's no output schema.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds valuable context about how to obtain valid values for 'gblGatewayId' and 'setting' by referencing 'list_global_gateways', and provides examples of credential keys. This goes beyond the schema's technical descriptions to explain the practical workflow.

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 ('company gateway'), specifying it's a POST operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_gateway' or 'delete_gateway' by being the creation operation, and from 'list_global_gateways' which is explicitly mentioned as a prerequisite for discovery.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after calling 'list_global_gateways' to discover valid gateway IDs and required credential fields. It also specifies which parameters are required versus optional, and gives concrete examples (e.g., 'Stripe, Braintree') to illustrate the workflow.

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