Brevo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations (create, update, delete) but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether operations are idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a multi-operation tool with potential side effects, 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 extremely concise - a single phrase that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or 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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, multiple operations including destructive ones (delete), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the tool's scope, error handling, or what results to expect from different operations. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Webhook management - create, update, delete webhooks for event notifications', which includes specific verbs (create, update, delete) and the resource (webhooks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'events' or 'email_with_tracking' that might also handle notifications, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 any prerequisites, context for webhook management, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'events' or 'email' that might handle similar notification functions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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