MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

Annotations confirm readOnly/idempotent/safe operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about what gets returned: 'explanations, code examples, request/response formats, and best practices'—detail not present in annotations. No contradictions with safety hints.

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 Purpose → Coverage → Args → Returns sections. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly redundant in listing all enum values which are also in the schema, but this aids readability. Zero fluff 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?

Appropriately complete for a read-only documentation tool. Since output schema exists (Returns section), the description doesn't need to exhaustively explain return values, but commendably describes the content types (examples, formats) anyway. Given single-parameter simplicity and strong annotations, coverage is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage per context signals, the description partially compensates by listing all 16 valid topic values in the prose. However, the 'Args' section merely states params 'contains the topic' without explaining semantics, formats, or validation rules, leaving gaps given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it retrieves 'detailed documentation for a specific Midtrans Core API topic' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes scope implicitly by listing 16 covered topics (overview, authorization, charge, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling `midtrans_search_documentation` or `midtrans_get_documentation_map`.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While it lists topics covered, it doesn't clarify whether to use this vs `search_documentation` for keyword searches, or vs `get_code_example` for implementation snippets. Users must infer usage from the topic list alone.

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