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. It discloses that the tool performs a test operation and returns a gateway object with connection status, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error responses. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return value. The first sentence states the action, and the second describes the response. There's no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from behavior more clearly).

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return information but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the significance of the test (e.g., what 'connection status' means practically), error handling, or how this tool fits within the broader gateway management workflow. For a testing tool with behavioral implications, more context would be helpful.

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 'gatewayId' documented as 'Gateway ID (required)'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (no format examples, validation rules, or contextual meaning). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Test gateway connection' specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gateway' (which retrieves gateway info) and 'create_gateway'/'update_gateway'/'delete_gateway' (which modify gateways). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing gateway), error conditions, or when other tools like 'get_gateway' might be more appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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