framedeck-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external data access. The description adds the temporal scope ('past N days'), but fails to specify what constitutes 'activity' (card moves? comments? creation?) or the aggregation method. With annotations covering safety, the lack of behavioral detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 with the action verb front-loaded. While appropriately sized at 11 words, it sacrifices valuable detail (what activity is tracked, output format) for brevity. No redundancy or filler present.

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 one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, for a reporting tool with no output schema, the vague term 'activity' and lack of output structure description leaves gaps in understanding what data is returned.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'days' parameter fully documented as 'How many days to look back (default 7)'. The description references 'past N days' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic guidance (e.g., acceptable ranges, format details). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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 tool retrieves ('Shows') a summary of activity across all boards for a time range. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_board_overview (single board) and get_card_details (individual items) by specifying 'across all boards' and 'past N days', though it could more explicitly contrast with other reporting tools.

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 through 'across all boards' (suggesting multi-board reporting needs), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_board_overview or other reporting tools. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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