Brevo MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the combined action but doesn't explain critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how errors are handled. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a significant gap.

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 is extremely concise—just one sentence with two clauses. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create contact and add to list in one call') and adds a brief utility note. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, mutation likely, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and comparison to siblings. For a tool that creates and modifies data, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'listIds' format or 'attributes' structure). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Create contact and add to list in one call'. It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('contact'), and mentions the combined action ('add to list'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'contacts' or 'bulk_contact_import', which might offer similar functionality.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'universally useful combination' implies broad applicability but offers no specific context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over separate create and add operations, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'contacts' or 'bulk_contact_import' for contact management.

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