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 operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if templates are reusable, what happens on duplicate names, or any rate limits. It misses critical behavioral details for a creation tool.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., template ID, success confirmation), error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity of creating a resource, more context is needed for effective use.

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, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Template name', 'Email subject', 'Email body HTML'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema is comprehensive enough to justify the baseline score.

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 email template' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('email template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createTextMessageTemplate' (for text messages) and 'createTemplate' (likely for email templates), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'updateTemplate' or 'mergeTemplate', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existing templates). It lacks context about typical use cases or constraints.

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