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 partially compensates by specifying date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and default limits, and noting the return type (List of meetings). However, it fails to disclose safety properties (read-only vs. destructive), pagination behavior, or error handling (e.g., person not found).

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 docstring format with Args/Returns sections is structurally clear and front-loaded. Information is dense without redundancy, though the inclusion of 'ctx: MCP context' references a parameter not present in the input schema, which is slightly extraneous.

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?

For a 4-parameter search tool with an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description adequately covers inputs and return types. However, it lacks guidance on search matching behavior (exact vs. partial), timezone handling for dates, or result ordering, leaving operational gaps.

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 four parameters with meaningful semantics: person accepts 'name or email,' dates require specific formats, and limit has a documented default of 20. This adds necessary type and format context missing from the schema.

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 'Find[s] all meetings involving a specific person,' providing a specific verb (Find), resource (meetings), and distinguishing filter (specific person). This effectively differentiates it from siblings like list_meetings or search_meetings, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 list_meetings, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the person must be an exact match) or exclusions. Usage context is entirely absent.

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