Standard Metrics 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination defaults and limits (page: 1, per_page: 100, max: 100), which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (structure, fields, etc.).

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of 'Filter by' for company_slug and company_id.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job covering parameters but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain the relationship between company_slug and company_id (can both be used? which takes precedence?), what fields sort_by accepts, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters with clear explanations of their purpose, defaults, and constraints. It explains that company_slug and company_id are filters, sort_by sorts notes by field, and page/per_page handle pagination with specific defaults and limits.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'notes associated with a specific company', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_notes_summary' or 'list_companies', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality.

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 'get_company_notes_summary' or 'list_companies'. It mentions filtering by company but doesn't explain why you'd choose this over other note-related or company-related tools in the sibling list.

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