Retrieve available timeframes from Follow Up Boss to filter deals, people, or smart lists by date ranges in your CRM queries.
Get a list of timeframes. (GET /timeframes)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds the GET endpoint, which weakly implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or response behavior.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. It is concise, though it trades completeness for brevity.
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?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified: it does not explain what timeframes represent, whether results are paginated, or what the response contains. The optional extraQuery parameter is handled by the schema, but the overall tool context is lacking.
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% for the sole optional parameter, and the schema already describes extraQuery in detail. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 states a clear action (Get) and resource (list of timeframes) plus the HTTP endpoint, which makes the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not elaborate on what a timeframe is or how this resource differs from other list_* siblings, and it largely restates the tool name.
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?
No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus other list tools or related timeframe-specific operations. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.