Attio MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds context by specifying that it retrieves 'full record payload', which clarifies the scope of data returned beyond what annotations provide. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or any limitations like rate limits.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve the full record payload') and includes essential context ('for a search result ID'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, read-only/idempotent annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and input context but does not address output details, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Identifier emitted by the search tool (<resource>:<id>)'. The description adds minimal value by restating 'search result ID' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 specific action ('Retrieve'), the target ('full record payload'), and the required input ('for a search result ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search' or 'get-record-details' by focusing on fetching complete data for a pre-identified search result.

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 by referencing 'search result ID' from the 'search tool', suggesting it should be used after search operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get-record-details' or 'get-detailed-info', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID requirement.

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