Favro MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: default behavior (top-level only), hierarchical navigation requirements (need list_collections first), and return format (list with IDs, names, types). However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and return format. Every sentence adds value: first states core function, second clarifies default scope, numbered steps provide procedural guidance, Args section explains parameter, Returns section describes output. No wasted words.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, detailed usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and output description. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately focuses on semantic context rather than repeating structured return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single parameter 'collection': purpose (filtering), format (name or ID), default behavior (null = top-level only), and relationship to list_collections. The description adds complete meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'List' and resource 'boards in the organization', specifying scope 'at the TOP LEVEL only (not inside collections/folders)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_board (single board) and list_collections (different resource).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'By default, lists boards at the TOP LEVEL only' and provides step-by-step guidance for finding boards inside collections using list_collections first then this tool with collection parameter. Clearly differentiates from list_collections and get_board.

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