Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and optional pagination parameters, implying a read-only, list operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details like the HTTP endpoint and parameters in a compact format. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured, such as separating endpoint info from parameter lists.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on response structure, error cases, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for full agent understanding without external 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing optional parameters ('include, orderBy, sortBy, pageNo, itemPerPage') without additional context, meeting 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 ('product rate plan charges for a product rate plan'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_product_rate_plan_charge' or 'list_product_rate_plans', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 mentions the required parameter 'ratePlanId' but offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons with related tools like 'get_product_rate_plan_charge' for single charges.

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