Fathom MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that results are paginated, shows the return structure with name and created_at fields, and provides concrete examples of usage patterns. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the repetition of parameter details that are already in the schema adds minor redundancy, preventing a perfect score. Most sentences earn their place by providing examples or clarifying returns.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the description's inclusion of return structure and examples, this is complete enough for effective use. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description detailing what the paginated list returns. No significant gaps remain for a list operation.

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 both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same information about cursor and response_format without adding additional semantic meaning or usage nuances beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('List all teams'), resource ('teams accessible to the authenticated user in Fathom'), and scope ('in your Fathom workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like fathom_list_team_members by focusing on teams rather than members, and from fathom_list_meetings by targeting teams instead of meetings.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to organize recordings and control access to meeting content'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The examples imply usage for pagination and format selection, but lack explicit comparison to other list tools.

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