Attio MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on creation failure. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while still being informative.

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 creation tool with no output schema and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'supported types' means, what the creation response looks like, or how this differs from other creation tools in the server. The annotations cover basic safety but the description lacks crucial operational context.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'resource_type' and 'record_data' or provide examples of valid record structures.

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 ('create') and resource ('new record of any supported type'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-note' or 'add-record-to-list', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 sibling tools like 'create-note', 'add-record-to-list', and 'update-record' available, there's no indication of when this general creation tool is preferred over more specific ones or what prerequisites might be needed.

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