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 states 'Create' (implying a write operation) and mentions a POST endpoint, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a complex creation tool with 24 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentence that mixes endpoint information, required/optional parameters, and examples. While it contains useful information, it's not well-structured or front-loaded—the core purpose gets lost in parameter details. Some trimming and organization would improve clarity.

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 complex creation tool with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on success/failure), doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., dependencies like 'billingPeriod' required if 'chargeType recurring'), and omits usage guidelines. The parameter listing doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 lists required and optional parameters with some examples (e.g., 'currency ex. USD, price in cents'), adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('rate plan charge'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_product_rate_plan' by focusing on charges rather than plans, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar tools like 'add_subscription_rate_plan_charge'.

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 like 'add_subscription_rate_plan_charge' or 'create_product_rate_plan'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for creating a product rate plan charge.

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