GrowthBook 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. 'Get all attributes' doesn't reveal anything about permissions, rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. It fails to provide essential context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to convey meaningful context.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'attributes' are, what system they belong to, what format they're returned in, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool with no structured metadata, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, this is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get all attributes' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_attributes'. It doesn't specify what type of attributes, from what system, or what scope 'all' refers to. While it indicates a retrieval action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_feature_flags' or 'get_environments'.

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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_feature_flags' or 'get_experiments'. Without any usage instructions, an agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone.

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