MCP Midtrans Documentation Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing content richness ('troubleshooting tips', 'common scenarios', 'handling guidance') which describes what kind of practical information is returned beyond raw status codes. However, it omits details about caching, rate limits, or why Midtrans-specific codes differ from standard HTTP specs.

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?

Uses structured docstring format (Args/Returns) with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: first line establishes purpose, second describes content richness, Args clarifies the single parameter, and Returns describes output format. Appropriate length for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It compensates for the lack of visible output schema by describing the return value (string table with handling guidance). Could improve by noting this is for debugging/integration help versus runtime transaction monitoring.

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 schema description coverage at 0% per context signals, the description compensates adequately by explicitly listing the valid status code ranges (2xx, 3xx, 4xx, or 5xx) in the Args section. It clarifies the parameter structure (params contains the range), though it could enhance further by explaining the semantic meaning of each range (success, redirect, client/server errors).

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 'Midtrans HTTP status code reference' for a specific range, with specific verb (Get) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling documentation tools by focusing specifically on HTTP status codes rather than general documentation or code examples, though it could further clarify 'reference' means lookup documentation versus checking a transaction status.

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 implies usage through its scope (HTTP status codes, troubleshooting tips), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like `midtrans_get_documentation` or `midtrans_get_code_example`. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative suggestions are provided.

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