Favro MCP

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. While 'Create a new card' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when board/column aren't specified. The Returns section mentions output but doesn't describe format or potential errors.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. However, the initial 'Create a new card.' sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the overall description could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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 of a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The parameter explanations are excellent, but behavioral context is lacking. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more operational context for a write operation.

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 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, format constraints (e.g., 'supports markdown' for description, 'List of tag IDs or names' for tags), and default behaviors (e.g., 'uses current board if not specified'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a new card' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_card' or 'tag_card' beyond the basic creation action. The description establishes what the tool does but doesn't explain how it differs from other card-modification 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. With sibling tools like 'update_card', 'tag_card', 'assign_card', and 'move_card', there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus modification of existing cards. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with similar tools are mentioned.

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