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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and required parameters, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. It includes only essential technical details (HTTP method, endpoint, parameter mapping) without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from technical specifications, but overall it avoids waste.

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 (a list operation with filtering) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., array of products, fields included), pagination behavior, or error cases. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this omission makes it harder for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('integrationId' and 'productName') as required. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'productName' is sent as a query parameter named 'name', but this is a technical detail rather than semantic clarification. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 products for an integration'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, adding technical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_external_product' (singular) or 'link_external_product', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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. It mentions required parameters but doesn't explain the context for listing external products, such as for integration setup or management. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_external_product', 'link_external_product'), the lack of comparative usage advice is a significant gap.

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