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. While it mentions operations like 'create', 'update', and 'delete' which imply mutations, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens during bulk operations. For a multi-operation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information. It's appropriately sized for a multi-operation tool, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping related operations or indicating which are most common.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, multiple operation types (including destructive ones like 'delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how different operations behave. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it just lists operation types without explaining how parameters interact with them. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'comprehensive contact management' and lists specific operations (create, update, get, bulk import, manage lists and attributes), providing a good overview of what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'contact_with_list' or 'bulk_contact_import', which appear to offer overlapping 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'contact_with_list' and 'bulk_contact_import' available, there's no indication of when this comprehensive tool is preferred over more specialized ones, or any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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