armavita-quo-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation with filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'pageToken' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of contact objects). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List contacts in the Quo workspace') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or structural issues—every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a list tool with full parameter documentation in the schema. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, return format) and usage guidelines. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate, but the clear purpose and concise structure keep it from being inadequate.

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 three parameters (maxResults, pageToken, externalIds). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering', which loosely maps to 'externalIds' but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('contacts in the Quo workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_contact' (singular retrieval) and 'create_contact'/'update_contact'/'delete_contact' (mutations), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_calls' or 'list_users' beyond the resource type.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose 'list_contacts' over 'get_contact' for individual retrieval, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_users' for different resource types. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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