Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a GET operation and lists example integrations, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the statuses are returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core purpose and endpoint, another providing integration examples. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with one parameter. However, the endpoint format 'GET /integrations/{integrationId}/orders/statuses' could be more clearly integrated with the natural language description rather than appearing as a technical specification.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'order statuses' means in practice, what the response format looks like, and any behavioral constraints. The integration examples help but don't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.

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 single parameter 'integrationId' clearly documented as 'Company integration ID (required).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find integration IDs. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 order statuses') and resource ('for an integration'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on order statuses specifically rather than general orders or other integration data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_integration_config' or 'list_integrations' beyond the specific endpoint mentioned.

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 implied usage context by mentioning 'Supported for e.g. BigCommerce, Shopify,' suggesting this tool is for e-commerce integrations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_integrations' or 'get_integration_config,' nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the required integrationId parameter.

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