MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=true; the description adds valuable context that the returned code includes idempotent processing logic, signature verification, and transaction status handling—disclosing what the generated code actually does beyond the tool's execution safety.

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?

Appropriately sized with clear information hierarchy: purpose statement, feature list, language enumeration, Args/Returns sections. Every sentence conveys distinct information (capabilities, constraints, return format) with no redundancy.

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?

Thoroughly covers the tool's purpose and return value (complete webhook handler code with specific features). Given annotations cover safety profile and the description explains the code contents, it provides sufficient context for invocation, though it could briefly mention error handling behavior of the tool itself.

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 nested schema structure, the description explicitly lists available enum values (python, javascript, go, rust) and clarifies that params contains the language, adding practical guidance beyond the schema references.

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 specific verb 'Get' with resource 'notification/webhook handler implementation' and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_code_example and get_charge_example by specifying this is for webhook endpoints with signature verification and transaction status handling.

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 contextual clues through domain-specific terminology (webhook handler, signature verification) that implicitly signal when to use this (implementing payment notification endpoints), though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives.

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