followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data by identifier.

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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'automation', 'by ID') earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'automation' is in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. The agent would need to guess about the response format and error handling.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('an automation by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listAutomations' or 'getAutomationPerson', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listAutomations' or 'getAutomationPerson'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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