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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and an optional filter, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a list of data.

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, starting with the core purpose ('List company integrations') followed by technical details (GET endpoint and optional parameter). It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from technical specs.

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 integrations (likely involving multiple data points), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., integration names, keys, statuses), how results are formatted, or any limitations like pagination. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'type' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by listing the possible values for 'type' (e.g., ecommerce, email), but this is redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide significant additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 tool's purpose: 'List company integrations' specifies the verb (list) and resource (company integrations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_integration_by_key' and 'list_integrations_by_key' by focusing on listing all integrations with optional filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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 implies usage through the mention of an optional 'type' parameter for filtering, suggesting it's for listing integrations with or without type filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_integration_by_key' or 'list_integrations_by_key', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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