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. It states 'Get' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or response format. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 with a single sentence 'Get a note by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) and doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., note content or metadata). For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context is needed to ensure proper 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 the 'id' parameter documented as 'Note ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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 'Get a note by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPerson' or 'getDeal' beyond the resource name, and doesn't specify what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata vs. content).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid note ID), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'listNotes' (which isn't in the sibling list but could be relevant) or 'updateNote'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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