MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, safety traits are covered. The description adds value by specifying the return format (str with categorized links) and completeness ('complete map'), though it omits details like potential rate limits or freshness of documentation.

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 front-loading: purpose first, usage guidance second, then return details. The Returns block is slightly verbose but appropriately descriptive. No wasted 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?

For a simple documentation retrieval tool with minimal inputs and annotations covering safety hints, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the map contains (topics, APIs, payment methods) fulfilling informational needs without requiring output schema duplication.

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 coverage is 0% (GetDocumentationMapInput has no properties), and while the description doesn't explicitly describe the empty 'params' wrapper object, the lack of input requirements is somewhat self-evident from the schema structure. It neither compensates for nor contradicts the sparse 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Midtrans Core API documentation map'), clearly defining the scope as an index of all topics, APIs, and guides. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like midtrans_get_documentation or midtrans_search_documentation by positioning itself as the entry point/navigation aid.

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 with 'Use this as your starting point to understand what documentation is available,' establishing when to invoke it (for discovery/overview). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, it clearly defines the tool's position in the workflow hierarchy.

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