MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations by specifying exactly what constitutes the 'guide' (request/response examples, sandbox testing info, flow descriptions), helping the agent understand the richness of the return value without contradicting the safe, read-only nature of the operation.

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 description uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that efficiently packs information. The enumeration of 18 supported payment methods, while lengthy, is necessary for correct usage. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Only minor redundancy exists between the Args description and the inline list of methods.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the Returns section appropriately summarizes the output format without needing exhaustive detail. The description adequately covers the scope of integration information provided for a documentation retrieval tool, though explicit sibling differentiation would strengthen 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?

Context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage at the root level. The description compensates by using an Args section to explain that 'params' contains the payment method to query, but offers minimal detail on the nested structure or validation requirements. Given the single parameter and the enum values listed elsewhere in the description, this is minimally sufficient.

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 'Get[s] a complete integration guide for a specific Midtrans payment method' and enumerates the specific contents included (charge format, response format, flow, etc.). It distinguishes this as a comprehensive guide resource versus siblings like 'get_charge_example' by detailing the broad scope of information returned.

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?

The description helpfully lists all 18 supported payment methods explicitly, which prevents invalid invocations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'midtrans_get_charge_example' or 'midtrans_get_documentation'—it doesn't clarify that this retrieves method-specific integration details while others might retrieve generic examples or full API docs.

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