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. It states the tool 'Get[s] an email template by ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It uses clear language ('Get an email template by ID') and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse and understand 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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like read-only nature, error conditions, or what the return value includes (e.g., template content, metadata). For a tool with no structured support beyond the input schema, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 single parameter 'id' documented as 'Template ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID' without elaborating on format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's information.

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 ('email template by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'createTemplate', 'updateTemplate', 'deleteTemplate', and 'listTemplates' by specifying retrieval of a single template by ID rather than creation, modification, deletion, or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for email templates versus other template types, though this is implied.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid template ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing templates), or refer to sibling tools like 'listTemplates' for broader queries. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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