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. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns markdown format, defaults to 'overview', and lists optional document types. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error handling, or response structure details, which are minor gaps for a read-only documentation 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and default behavior, the second lists optional parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter options. A minor gap is the lack of output details (e.g., markdown structure or error responses), but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, this is acceptable.

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 the single parameter 'doc' with its type, description, and options. The description adds minimal value by repeating the options in a slightly different format ('overview | models | subscription-statuses | charge-types | gateways' vs. schema's list), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage context beyond what's in 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Rebillia API documentation as markdown'), specifying it returns an overview by default. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all operational commands (create, update, delete, list, get specific resources), by providing documentation rather than performing business operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'so Claude can read base URLs, auth, pagination, dates, amounts without fetching external URLs.' It provides a clear alternative context (using the tool vs. external URLs) and lists optional parameters for different documentation sections, guiding when to use specific options.

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