airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, and closed-world operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('full schema... including all fields and views'), which clarifies what information is retrieved beyond basic annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, it provides useful context about the output content.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the scope ('full schema... including all fields and views').

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the input schema fully describes parameters, the description adequately complements this by specifying the output scope. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of fields and views). For a read-only tool with good annotations, it is mostly complete but has a minor gap in output clarity.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., appId, tableIdOrName, debug). The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full schema for a single table including all fields and views'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_base_schema' or 'list_fields', which offer related but broader or partial schema information, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 for retrieving comprehensive schema details for a specific table, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_base_schema' for broader base-level schema or 'list_fields' for a simpler field list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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