airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by clarifying prerequisites (block ID and page ID sources) and implying a dependency on other tools, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core action and prerequisites efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating prerequisites from the main action.

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 (installation with prerequisites), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and prerequisites but doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage fully.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'block ID' and 'page ID' but doesn't provide additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Install') and target ('an extension onto a dashboard page'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'duplicate_extension' or 'remove_extension' beyond mentioning prerequisite IDs, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 implied usage context by specifying prerequisites ('Requires a block ID (from create_extension) and a page ID (from create_extension_dashboard)'), which helps identify when this tool is applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other extension-related tools (e.g., 'duplicate_extension' or 'remove_extension'), and doesn't mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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