Tally 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. It mentions creating questions with conditional option sets but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a write operation (implied by 'create'), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create questions with conditional option sets') and provides a concrete example ('like Q5/Q6 in complex surveys'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool's complexity (creating dynamic questions with conditional logic) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'conditional option sets' and 'trigger field values', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the structured data.

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 creates questions with conditional option sets that change based on previous answers, providing a specific verb ('create') and resource ('questions with conditional option sets'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on dynamic question creation rather than form management, notifications, or logic validation, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 implies usage for complex surveys with conditional logic (like Q5/Q6), suggesting context for dynamic question creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_conditional_logic_block' or 'validate_multiple_choice_logic', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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