Standard Metrics MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination defaults and limits, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error handling, rate limits, or the structure of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with helpful details. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main function. Minor room for improvement in flow, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, and return format. For a data retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance on usage and output is needed to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 4 parameters: it explains that 'company_slug' and 'company_id' are filters, and provides defaults and limits for 'page' and 'per_page'. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, offering practical usage information that aids parameter selection.

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's purpose: 'Get custom column data for companies.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('custom column data for companies'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_custom_column_options' or 'get_company_metrics', which might also retrieve company-related data.

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 many sibling tools like 'get_company', 'get_company_metrics', and 'get_custom_column_options', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate use case.

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