Featurebase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new post' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise with 'Create a new post'—a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation tool, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, relying solely on the schema for parameters. For a creation tool with significant input requirements, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no context on how parameters interact or default behaviors). 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 'Create a new post' clearly states the action (create) and resource (post), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_post' or specify what type of post (e.g., forum post, blog post), leaving it somewhat vague. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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. There are sibling tools like 'update_post' and 'list_posts', but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for new content creation), or exclusions, offering only a basic statement without usage context.

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