Productboard MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals pagination behavior and the fixed page limit of 100, which are important operational details not inferable from the schema alone. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what the response format looks like.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds important behavioral context about pagination. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter documentation.

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 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and pagination behavior but leaves the parameter undocumented and doesn't describe response format. For a simple list tool with pagination, this is minimally viable but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'page' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. The description's mention of pagination and page limit indirectly relates to the parameter but doesn't explain its purpose, format, or usage. With 1 parameter at 0% coverage and no compensation in the description, this meets the baseline for minimal documentation.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('list of all companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company_detail' by indicating it returns a list rather than a single entity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'get_components' or 'get_features' beyond the resource 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this returns companies (not components or features), there's no mention of when to use 'get_companies' versus 'get_company_detail' or other sibling tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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