MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

Annotations establish read-only/idempotent safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that returned code includes imports, configuration, API calls, and webhook handlers, and details framework-specific variants (Flask/FastAPI, Express with TypeScript, actix-web/axum).

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, includes, languages, args, returns). Front-loaded with the specific action. Every line provides distinct value: the 'Includes' list defines scope, 'Available languages' provides implementation details, and 'Returns' clarifies output format.

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?

Fully complete for a single-parameter retrieval tool. The description adequately covers the input (with framework specifics) and the output (complete code examples structure) without needing to repeat what a structured output schema would provide.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage noted in context signals, the description compensates by specifying the nested 'language' parameter and—crucially—enumerating available languages with their specific framework implementations (e.g., 'python (requests/Flask/FastAPI)') which is semantic detail absent from the raw enum.

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?

Excellent specificity: states the exact action ('Get'), resource ('implementation code examples'), domain ('Midtrans Core API integration'), and constraint ('specific programming language'). The comprehensive list of included examples (charge, refunds, webhooks, subscriptions) clearly distinguishes this from siblings like midtrans_get_charge_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?

Provides clear context on scope by enumerating exactly which implementations are included (charge, cancellation, refunds, webhooks with signature verification, etc.) and which languages/frameworks are supported. Lacks explicit 'when to use vs midtrans_get_charge_example' guidance, but the scope description enables inference.

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