Featureflow 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 what information is returned ('enabled state, rules, and variant assignments'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first states what the tool does, and the second specifies the returned data. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output details but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions), and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('idOrUnifiedKey' and 'environmentKey') with descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'idOrUnifiedKey' or valid values for 'environmentKey'. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the feature control configuration for a specific feature and environment.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('feature control configuration'), and scope ('specific feature and environment'), which is precise. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feature' or 'update_feature_control', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_feature' (which might retrieve general feature info) or 'update_feature_control' (for modifications), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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