Attio MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds some context about 'complex filtering across all resource types', which helps understand scope, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context. With annotations covering safety/idempotency and schema covering parameters, the description's main gap is distinguishing from sibling tools. For a search tool without output schema, more guidance on result format would be helpful but isn't critical.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema thoroughly documents all 7 parameters including examples and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from the schema rather than the description.

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 tool performs 'advanced search with complex filtering across all resource types', which specifies the verb (search), scope (advanced/complex), and resource coverage (all resource types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search', 'search-records', or 'batch-search', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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. With multiple search-related sibling tools (search, search-records, batch-search, search-by-content, etc.), the agent receives no indication of when this 'advanced search' is preferable or what distinguishes it from simpler search tools.

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