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. It states 'Delete a company filter' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related data), or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method hint ('DELETE') adds minimal context, but key behavioral details are missing.

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 with three concise parts: action statement, HTTP method hint, and parameter requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the HTTP method detail ('DELETE /companies/filters/{filterId}') could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what a 'company filter' is, the impact of deletion, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 'filterId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the filter to delete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'Required: filterId,' which merely repeats schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds no value.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a company filter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_filter' and 'list_filters' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'company filter' is in context, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing filter ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools like 'delete_customer' or 'delete_product'. The only implicit usage hint is the required parameter, but no explicit context is given.

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