Fellow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns a list of meetings with basic metadata' but doesn't specify what constitutes 'basic metadata', whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any error conditions. The behavioral context is minimal for a search operation.

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 sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. However, the mention of 'event ID' (which doesn't correspond to any schema parameter) creates unnecessary confusion that slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings, detailed behavioral context, and clarification about the misleading 'event ID' reference. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally specify what 'basic metadata' includes.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'title, date range, or event ID' but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The mention of 'event ID' is particularly confusing since no such parameter exists in the 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 searches for meetings/recordings in Fellow with specific filter capabilities (title, date range, event ID) and returns basic metadata. It uses specific verbs ('search', 'filter', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('meetings/recordings in Fellow'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_meetings_by_participants' or 'search_cached_notes'.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'get_meetings_by_participants', 'get_meeting_summary', and 'search_cached_notes', there's no indication of when this search tool is preferable or what specific use cases it addresses compared to those alternatives.

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