Granola MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (limit/offset) and default values (limit: 20), but omits safety information (read-only status), rate limits, and error conditions like invalid date ranges.

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 uses a clean docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded, though the inclusion of 'ctx' in Args adds minor noise since it appears to be a framework-injected parameter not present in the user-facing schema.

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?

The description acknowledges the paginated return type, which is sufficient given the existence of an output schema. However, for a tool with six optional parameters and multiple siblings, it lacks contextual guidance on filtering capabilities versus the search alternative.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting all six parameters with formats (YYYY-MM-DD), default values, and sort options (date_desc, date_asc, title). Minor deduction for documenting 'ctx' (likely framework-internal) alongside user-facing parameters.

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 'List meetings with optional filters', specifying the verb and resource. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_meetings' or 'get_meeting', leaving ambiguity about when to use list versus search.

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 'search_meetings' or 'get_meeting'. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or exclusion criteria for when this tool is inappropriate.

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