Favro MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'sets the default board,' implying a state-changing operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the change is persistent across sessions, error handling for invalid board IDs/names, or side effects on other operations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and concise, with four sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage, parameters, and returns without redundancy. Each sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 complexity (state-changing with one parameter), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like permissions or persistence. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's mention of 'The selected board details' is sufficient but not detailed.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'board' parameter can be 'specified by ID or name,' clarifying the expected input format. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensation is adequate, though it could detail constraints like valid name formats.

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 tool's purpose: 'Select a board as the active board' and 'sets the default board for card operations.' It specifies the verb (select/set) and resource (board), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_board' or 'list_boards' beyond its active-setting function.

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 implies usage by stating it 'sets the default board for card operations,' suggesting it should be used to establish a context for subsequent card-related actions. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_current_board' or prerequisites for board selection.

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