MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a string containing not just JSON but also a curl command and response format. It clarifies that optional sections can be included/excluded via flags, adding nuance beyond the annotations.

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 docstring format (Args/Returns) is appropriate for a utility function. The first sentence front-loads the purpose effectively. The Returns section is slightly verbose ('Complete charge request JSON example with curl command and response format') but generally efficient with no redundant sentences.

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 presence of comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, destructive flags) and the output schema being a simple string, the description appropriately explains the return value contents (JSON + curl). It adequately covers the single-parameter input structure, though mentioning the available payment method enum values could improve completeness.

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?

The root 'params' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage per context signals), and the description compensates minimally by noting it 'Contains payment method, and flags for optional sections.' The schema adequately describes the nested properties (include_customer_details, include_item_details), so the description meets baseline expectations without adding significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Generate[s] a complete charge request JSON example' with specific mention of ready-to-use bodies and optional sections. It effectively identifies the resource (charge request) and action (generate example), though it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tool midtrans_get_code_example.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like midtrans_get_code_example or midtrans_get_payment_method_guide. The description implies use cases through content (needing charge request examples) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives.

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