Attio MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations ('by query'), but doesn't cover important aspects like what data is searched, result format, or limitations. With annotations providing safety hints, the bar is lower, but the description could offer more operational details.

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 brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core function. However, the phrase 'for OpenAI MCP clients' is unnecessary clutter that doesn't help tool selection. Otherwise, it's efficiently structured with minimal waste.

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 complexity of search operations, multiple sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Attio data' includes, how results are returned, or how this differs from other search tools. For a search tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'query' parameter exists. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.

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 states the tool searches Attio data by query, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Attio data' encompasses and doesn't distinguish this tool from many sibling search tools (e.g., advanced-search, search-by-content, search-records). The phrase 'for OpenAI MCP clients' adds no functional clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools (advanced-search, search-by-content, search-records, etc.), the description offers no context about differences in scope, performance, or use cases. It simply states what the tool does without comparative information.

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