airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, which the description aligns with by implying a creation action ('duplicate') without contradiction. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—e.g., it doesn't specify if duplicates inherit settings, require permissions, or have rate limits—resulting in moderate value addition.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations covering basic safety (non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't address output format, error conditions, or dependencies, which are important for a mutation tool with no output schema, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including their purposes. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancement.

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 action ('duplicate') and target ('an installed extension on a dashboard page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_field' or 'duplicate_view', which share the 'duplicate' verb but target different resources, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_extension' or 'install_extension', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing extension to duplicate. It lacks context about when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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