Ashby MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all locations' implies a read operation but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, sorting, filtering capabilities, or what format the locations will be returned in. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 maximally concise at just three words - 'List all locations.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. While concise, it doesn't address critical context like what fields locations include, whether results are paginated, how many locations might be returned, or any authentication requirements. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context about the return format would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List all locations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('locations'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like 'department_list', 'user_list', or 'source_list' - it only specifies what resource it lists, not how it differs from other list operations.

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. With multiple list tools available (department_list, user_list, source_list, etc.), there's no indication of when location_list is appropriate versus other list operations, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for using this specific tool.

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