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 the core behavioral trait of relationship-based searching, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are invalid, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place by clearly communicating the tool's unique approach to searching.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, relationship-based logic) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core concept but doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or provide examples of relationship queries. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a relationship search tool, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'relationships' which aligns with the 'relationship_type' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose: 'Search records by their relationships to other entities'. It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('records') with the specific mechanism ('by their relationships'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search', 'search-by-content', or 'search-by-timeframe', which all perform different types of searches.

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. It doesn't mention sibling search tools like 'search', 'search-by-content', or 'search-by-timeframe', nor does it explain what makes relationship-based searching unique. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit context.

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