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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and includes an HTTP method hint ('GET'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an HTTP method detail. It avoids unnecessary words, though the HTTP detail might be slightly redundant if the agent already infers from the 'get' name, but it doesn't detract significantly from 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?

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the config contains, how to interpret results, or any behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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%, with the single parameter 'integrationId' fully documented in the schema as 'Company integration ID (required)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 ('Get') and resource ('company integration config by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar 'get' tools in the sibling list (like get_integration_by_key or get_integration_config vs list_integrations), which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_integration_by_key, list_integrations, list_integrations_by_key), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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