Featurebase MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get list') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the schema and inference, leaving room for error in invocation.

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 fully documents parameters (submissionId, page, limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on a post (via 'post' in the text), which aligns with the schema's 'Post ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('users who upvoted a post'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_comments' or 'list_posts' by focusing specifically on upvoters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_upvoter' (which adds rather than retrieves upvoters), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid post ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_comments' for post-related data. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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