Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and optional parameters, which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'paginated invoices' entails (e.g., structure, metadata). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences: purpose, endpoint, and pagination details. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has API context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and pagination behavior. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally add more context like response format, error handling, or authentication requirements to fully guide the agent, leaving some 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 (billRunId, pageNo, itemPerPage) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by naming 'pageNo' and 'itemPerPage' as optional and implying pagination context, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when 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 ('Get') and resource ('invoices for a bill run'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_invoice' (singular) and 'get_customer_invoices' (customer-focused), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_invoices' or 'get_subscription_invoices' in scope, keeping it at 4.

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 'get_customer_invoices' or 'list_invoices'. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., bill run existence) or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection among similar retrieval tools.

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