Attio MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'advanced multiple conditions' and 'complex sales pipeline queries' which gives some context about complexity, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications, pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with complex nested parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 communicates the core purpose upfront. It uses parenthetical clarification effectively. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'when' or providing a brief example of what 'advanced' means.

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 tool with complex nested parameters (4 parameters with deep nesting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, performance characteristics, or provide examples of the 'advanced' filtering. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error despite the good schema documentation.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'advanced multiple conditions' which aligns with the complex 'filters' parameter structure, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, usage examples, or semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('filter entries') and resource ('in a CRM list'), and specifies the capability ('with advanced multiple conditions'). It distinguishes from simpler filtering tools like 'filter-list-entries' by emphasizing 'advanced' and 'complex sales pipeline queries'. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling 'filter-list-entries' for direct comparison.

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 implies usage context ('complex sales pipeline queries') suggesting this tool is for more sophisticated filtering needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus simpler alternatives like 'filter-list-entries' or 'search' tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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