Monday.com MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and return fields, but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and return data. It's appropriately sized for this simple list operation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning pagination earlier.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no guidance on usage versus siblings, it leaves gaps that could hinder optimal tool selection.

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 both parameters (limit and page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated list of boards from your Monday.com workspace'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday_get_board_details' or 'monday_get_board_item_list', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday_get_board_details' (for specific board info) or 'monday_get_board_item_list' (for items within boards). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for usage.

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