Granola MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds date format specifications (YYYY-MM-DD) and describes return values ('Meetings with their notes and attendees'). However, lacks disclosure on safety profile (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or error handling 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance, Args block, and Returns section. Minor inefficiency: mentions 'ctx: MCP context' which doesn't appear in the provided input schema, suggesting slight bloat or inconsistency.

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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter read operation with output schema. Covers inputs and outputs sufficiently. Could improve by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation (distinguishing it from potential mutating siblings) and mentioning pagination or empty result behavior.

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 0%, but description compensates well by documenting all 4 parameters with types and semantics, including the mutual exclusivity between date range and days shortcut. Adds format constraints (YYYY-MM-DD) not present in 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?

States specific action (Get meeting summaries with notes) and scope (time period). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_meetings' or 'get_meeting', though 'summarize' in the name helps imply the distinction.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when asked to summarize, recap, or review meetings over a period') and clear parameter constraints ('Provide either date_from/date_to... or days'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative tools.

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