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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, error behavior (e.g., if ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or what data is returned. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 ('Get a relationship by ID') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it might be overly terse given the lack of other context, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but undocumented concept ('relationship'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a relationship entails, what data is returned, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., CRM context). For a tool with 1 parameter but rich sibling tools, more context is needed.

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% (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Relationship ID'), so the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition from the description regarding parameters.

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 relationship by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (relationship), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPerson', 'getDeal', or 'listRelationships'. It's functional but lacks specificity about what a 'relationship' represents 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'listRelationships' (for browsing) and 'updateRelationship' (for modifications), the description doesn't help an agent decide between retrieval by ID versus listing all relationships or when relationship data might be needed.

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