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 mentions pagination support and filtering options, which adds useful context beyond a basic list operation. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned data, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 two sentences: one stating the core purpose and endpoint, and another detailing parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Supports' could be integrated better).

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read operation with filtering, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding usage.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description lists the parameters (e.g., pagination, include, status, date filters) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('invoices for a customer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular) or 'list_invoices' (global), though the customer-specific scope is implied through the endpoint path.

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_unpaid_invoices' or 'list_invoices'. It mentions the endpoint but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites, such as needing a valid customer ID or how it relates to other invoice-related tools.

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