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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) but lacks behavioral details such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'global integration info' includes. This is a read operation, but more context is needed for a higher score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes an exhaustive list of enum values that could be trimmed for brevity. The HTTP endpoint detail is useful but makes it slightly verbose. It's adequate but not optimally concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks details on return values or error cases. Given the absence of annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 the 'keyName' parameter with its enum values. The description repeats the enum list but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Get global integration info') and resource ('by key name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_integrations' or 'get_integration_config', which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_integrations' or 'get_integration_config'. The description only states what it does without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings.

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