Rebillia MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. The HTTP method 'GET' is mentioned but doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what 'List' already implies.

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. The second part listing optional parameters could be slightly more structured, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste. The HTTP method mention ('GET /gateways') adds technical context without being verbose.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about gateways, whether results are paginated, what authentication is required, or how to interpret the results. The mention of HTTP endpoint is technical detail that doesn't address the completeness gaps for an AI agent.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions the three optional parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('company gateways'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gateway' (singular) and 'list_global_gateways' (global vs company scope). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'gateway' is in this context, which could help further differentiate from other list tools.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'list_gateways' over 'get_gateway' (for single gateway details) or 'list_global_gateways' (for global vs company scope), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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