followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a stage ID). It lacks critical context for a creation tool, such as whether duplicates are allowed or if there are constraints on stage names.

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 extremely concise—just three words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's perfectly structured and efficient.

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 (a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a pipeline stage is, what happens after creation, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations to cover safety or output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'pipelineId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format expectations, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a pipeline stage' clearly states the action (create) and resource (pipeline stage), but it's quite basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createPipeline' or 'updateStage' beyond the obvious resource difference. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what a 'pipeline stage' entails in this context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pipeline), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'createPipeline', 'updateStage', or 'deleteStage'. 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.