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 'return tracking info immediately', which hints at real-time feedback, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'tracking info' entails (e.g., delivery status, open rates). For a tool with no annotations and 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core functionality in a single sentence. The phrase 'universally useful combination' adds minimal fluff but doesn't significantly detract from clarity. It efficiently communicates the main purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format (what 'tracking info' includes), and how it differs from the sibling 'email' tool. For a tool that sends emails and returns tracking data, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'to' as 'Recipients list', 'htmlContent' as 'Email HTML content'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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: 'Send email and return tracking info immediately'. It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('email'), and key feature ('return tracking info'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling 'email' tool, which appears to be a more general email tool, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 usage guidance with 'universally useful combination', which is vague and doesn't specify when to use this tool versus the sibling 'email' tool or other communication tools like 'sms' or 'whatsapp'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternative recommendations are provided.

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