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 'manage' operations but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., deletions are irreversible), or response formats. For a tool with 26 possible operations including destructive ones like delete_company, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Complete CRM functionality'). However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing the operation types or grouping them, but given the complexity, it's appropriately concise without wasted words.

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 high complexity (14 parameters, 26 operations including mutations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's scope relative to siblings, behavioral traits, or how to choose operations. For such a multifaceted tool, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool handles companies, deals, tasks, and notes, which aligns with the operation enum but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. 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 states the tool provides 'complete CRM functionality' and lists the resource types managed (companies, deals, tasks, notes), which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about the specific operations available and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'contacts' or 'account' that might overlap with CRM functionality. The description lacks a clear verb-action pairing beyond 'manage'.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'contacts' or 'account' that might handle related CRM functions, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage solely from the operation parameter enum.

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