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 'Get' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of templates with details). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Get pre-built form templates') and includes relevant examples in parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, permissions) and doesn't leverage the absence of an output schema to explain return values. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with a well-documented 'templateType' parameter including an enum of common form types. The description adds context by listing examples (contact forms, surveys, etc.) that align with the enum, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('pre-built form templates'), specifying the purpose as retrieving templates for common use cases. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tally_form' or 'get_tally_forms' by focusing on templates rather than actual forms. However, it could be more specific about what 'pre-built' entails (e.g., ready-to-use structures).

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 common form types (e.g., contact forms, surveys), suggesting it's for starting points or inspiration. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_tally_form' (for custom forms) or 'get_conditional_logic_templates' (for logic templates), leaving some ambiguity. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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