Monday.com MCP Server

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 mentions that the tool returns 'board information with items that match the specified criteria,' which hints at filtering behavior, but it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'assigned to me' means in context (e.g., user authentication). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly separating purpose from behavior).

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 context: 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering aspect, but since no annotations are present, it should ideally include more behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, what 'assigned to me' entails). The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. Overall, it's adequate but has clear room for improvement in behavioral transparency.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'boardId' well-documented as 'The ID of the board to retrieve details for (required).' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific board including filtered items (assigned to me and ready to start).' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('board details'), and scope ('filtered items'), which distinguishes it from generic board retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday_get_board_item_list' or 'monday_get_board_list' beyond mentioning filtered items.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies usage when needing board details with specific filtered items ('assigned to me and ready to start'), but it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday_get_board_list' for a list of boards or 'monday_get_board_item_list' for items without board details. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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