Fellow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return content but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 concise with two clear sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second specifies the return content. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage context.

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 read operation with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't cover important context like authentication needs, error handling, or how the three alternative parameters interact. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally provide more about return format.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'Returns the structured notes' but doesn't clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 meeting summary/notes content' with specific details about what it returns ('structured notes including agenda items, discussion topics, and decisions made'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_action_items' or 'get_meeting_transcript' by focusing on summary content, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_cached_notes' which might overlap.

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. With siblings like 'search_cached_notes', 'search_meetings', and 'get_meeting_transcript', there's no indication of when this specific retrieval method is preferred or what distinguishes it from other search/fetch tools.

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