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' implies a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid IDs. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 stage by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 the parameter 'id' documented as 'Stage ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 stage by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('stage'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'listStages' or 'updateStage', which reduces its effectiveness for agent selection.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a stage ID), contrast with 'listStages' for multiple stages, or specify use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among many siblings.

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