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. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), endpoint (/globals/gateways), and details about the return structure (gblGatewayId, name, keyName, requiredFields, fieldDetails). However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides technical details (GET endpoint and return values), and the third gives usage guidance, all without wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, endpoint, and return structure. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format nuances, which could be helpful 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters, but doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 ('available global gateway types') with specific examples (e.g., Stripe, Braintree). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'list_gateways' by specifying it's for global gateway types, not just gateways, and from 'create_gateway' by indicating it's used for discovery before creation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this before create_gateway') and why ('to discover valid gblGatewayId and which keys to pass in the setting object'). It provides clear context for its application relative to a specific sibling tool.

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