followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains (e.g., returns the created type ID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Create an appointment type' is front-loaded and perfectly concise. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and resource without redundancy.

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 complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, error conditions, return values, and system-specific context (e.g., how appointment types integrate with other entities like appointments). The agent is left guessing about critical operational details.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'name' parameter is documented as 'Type name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't clarify naming constraints, character limits, or uniqueness requirements. It meets the minimum but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Create an appointment type' clearly states the action (create) and resource (appointment type), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createAppointment' (specific appointments) and 'updateAppointmentType' (modification). However, it doesn't specify what an 'appointment type' represents in this system (e.g., categories like 'consultation' or 'follow-up'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing types), or direct alternatives like 'updateAppointmentType' or 'listAppointmentTypes'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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