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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List posts' implies a read operation, there's no information about pagination behavior (beyond the limit/page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description merely lists available fields without explaining behavioral characteristics.

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 sentence followed by a long field list. While the initial sentence is concise, the exhaustive field enumeration feels like data dumping rather than helpful guidance. The structure could be improved by grouping related fields or explaining field relationships rather than just listing them.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or typical response structure. The field list hints at what might be returned, but without an output schema, the description should provide more complete context about the tool's behavior and results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing available return fields, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states 'List posts with optional filtering' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (posts). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_similar_submissions' or 'get_post_upvoters' - it's a generic listing function without specifying what makes it unique among the available post-related tools.

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's no mention of when to choose list_posts over get_similar_submissions or get_post_upvoters, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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