Vitally MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieve notes' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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 with zero waste—'Vitally tool to retrieve notes for an account'—front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no redundant or verbose elements.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral context needed for effective use. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what 'notes' entail and how results are structured.

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 both parameters (accountId and limit) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'retrieve' and the resource 'notes for an account', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_account_note' (write vs read) and 'get_note_by_id' (specific note vs account notes), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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 when to choose it over 'get_note_by_id' (for a single note) or 'get_account_conversations' (for related data), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an account ID. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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