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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description does not address critical behavioral aspects such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, error handling, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with complex parameters.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and key updatable fields without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the core functionality.

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 of the tool (5 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and details on the update operation's effects or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this mutation tool correctly and safely.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the updatable fields (name, status, blocks, settings), but does not provide additional context, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as updating an existing Tally form with comprehensive options including name, status, blocks, and settings. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'Tally form', but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_form_settings' or 'update_form_status', which appear to handle more specific aspects of form updates.

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. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'update_form_settings' or 'update_form_status', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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