Coffee Company 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 HTTP API endpoint (POST /cashier/payQuery) and status codes (0=支付中, 1=支付成功, 2=支付失败), which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the pay_token is invalid. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The status code explanation and parameter details are efficiently presented. However, the inclusion of the HTTP API endpoint might be slightly extraneous if not critical for agent usage, but it doesn't significantly detract from conciseness.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, query operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and status codes. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details like error handling or auth requirements, but for a simple status query tool, this is partially mitigated by the output schema and straightforward use case.

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 description explicitly defines the single parameter 'pay_token' as '支付令牌（收银下单接口返回的 payToken）' (payment token returned by the cashier order placement interface). With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title 'Pay Token' and type 'string'), the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's origin and purpose, adding meaningful semantics beyond the basic schema.

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 '查询支付状态' (query payment status) with specific context about it being for '收银台下单后的支付结果' (payment results after cashier order placement). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on payment status queries rather than assets, coupons, equity, or member operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential payment-related siblings that might not exist in this list.

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 implies usage context by specifying '收银台下单后的支付结果' (after cashier order placement) and mentions the pay_token comes from '收银下单接口' (cashier order placement interface). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none of the siblings appear to be direct alternatives), nor does it state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites beyond having the pay_token.

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