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 minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions the content types being searched but doesn't describe result format, pagination behavior, or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be more front-loaded with distinguishing characteristics. There's no wasted verbiage, but it lacks the specificity that would make it truly excellent.

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 has 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations declaring it as read-only/idempotent, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with multiple similar sibling tools, the description should do more to clarify when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. It meets minimum requirements but leaves significant contextual gaps.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'notes, activity, and interaction content' which partially maps to the content_type enum values, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't explain parameter relationships or search behavior. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search within notes, activity, and interaction content' states the general action (search) and scope (content types), but it's vague about what resources are being searched. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search', 'search-records', or 'advanced-search' which likely have overlapping functionality. The description provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the target resources.

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 siblings ('search', 'search-records', 'advanced-search', 'search-by-relationship', 'search-by-timeframe'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice. The description offers only a basic functional statement without usage context.

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