airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, which the description aligns with by using 'Create'. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether duplicate names are allowed, or what happens on failure. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and providing additional context about extensions and dashboard pages, with no wasted text.

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 (a creation operation with 3 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, but there's no output schema. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a dashboard ID or success confirmation), which is a gap. However, it adequately describes the purpose and context, making it minimally viable but incomplete for full agent use.

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 already documents all three parameters (appId, name, debug). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'appId' or naming constraints for 'name'. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 specific action ('Create a new extension dashboard page') and resource ('in a base'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_extension' (which creates the extension itself) and 'install_extension' (which installs an extension onto a page). The additional context about extensions being installed onto dashboard pages further clarifies the purpose.

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 like 'create_extension' or 'install_extension'. It mentions that extensions are installed onto dashboard pages, but doesn't specify whether this tool is for creating empty dashboard pages or if it includes installation. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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