Vitally 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 states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what 'recent' means (timeframe), or the format of returned conversations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the tool's scope or constraints. Overall, it earns its place without 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, the format of returned conversations, or any error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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%, with both parameters ('accountId' and 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'accountId' is obtained or what 'recent' entails. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 recent conversations for an account' with the specific resource 'conversations' and scope 'for an account'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_notes' or 'get_account_tasks', which follow a similar pattern for different resources.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'recent' conversations, or how it differs from other account-related tools like 'get_account_notes' or 'search_tools' that might retrieve conversations indirectly.

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