AroFlo MCP

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

Strong addition beyond annotations: explicitly notes 'client-side filtering' (critical implementation detail), 'auto pagination', and 'result cap' (aligning with maxResults default 2000). Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds operational context without contradiction.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. First sentence covers purpose and filtering logic; second covers pagination. No redundant words or filler content. Front-loaded with the most critical information (open projects, client-side filtering).

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?

Adequate for a listing tool with output schema present. Covers the core 'open' filtering logic and pagination behavior. However, given 9 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), the description leaves significant gaps regarding the date, organization, and manager filtering capabilities.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates minimally. It implies semantics for pagination parameters (autoPaginate, maxResults, pageSize) via 'auto pagination' and 'result cap', but fails to explain 6 other parameters including sinceCreatedUtc, orgId, managerUserId, mode, verbose, and debug.

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 lists 'open projects' with specific filtering logic (status/open + closeddate empty), distinguishing it from the generic sibling 'aroflo_get_projects'. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to use this versus the similar 'aroflo_report_open_projects_with_task_hours' sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aroflo_get_projects' or 'aroflo_report_open_projects_with_task_hours'. While the 'open' qualifier implies usage for active projects only, there are no when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites mentioned.

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