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. While it implies a read operation ('List'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and endpoint, and another listing optional parameters. It's front-loaded with essential information and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Optional parameters:' instead of 'Optional:').

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 listing operations (which often involve pagination, filtering, and structured responses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains, how results are ordered, or any limitations, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions three parameters ('include', 'itemPerPage', 'pageNo') as optional but adds no additional meaning about their usage, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting 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 action ('List') and resource ('external invoices for an integration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_subscription_external_invoices' or 'list_invoices', which would require explicit differentiation to earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_subscription_external_invoices' and 'list_invoices' available, there's no indication of context-specific usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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