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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'list' actually returns (e.g., array of integration objects). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 brief but inefficiently structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence mixes HTTP endpoint information with a redundant parameter value list that belongs in the schema. While not verbose, it includes technical details (GET endpoint) that don't enhance agent understanding and duplicates schema content.

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 constitutes an 'integration' in this context, what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, or how the list is formatted. The agent knows what to filter by but not what to expect in return.

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%, with the parameter 'keyName' fully documented in the schema including all valid values. The description repeats the parameter name and enumerates the same values, adding no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets 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 ('company integrations by key name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_integrations' by specifying filtering by key name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_integration_by_key' which appears to retrieve a single integration.

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 this over 'list_integrations' (which likely lists all integrations without filtering) or 'get_integration_by_key' (which likely retrieves details for a specific integration). The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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