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 only states 'Get events for a webhook', offering no information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate 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, concise sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is overly brief and lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., behavioral traits), which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite its efficiency.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'events' are, how results are returned, or any operational constraints. For a tool with one parameter but missing structural context, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full behavior and output.

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 'Webhook ID'. The description does not add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 events for a webhook' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('events for a webhook'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'events' entail (e.g., delivery logs, triggers) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getWebhook' or 'listWebhooks', which are related but distinct operations.

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 webhook ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getWebhook' (which might retrieve webhook details) or 'listWebhooks' (which lists webhooks). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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