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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it returns active/inactive participants, pagination behavior, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses conversation data.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'participants' means in this context (users, bots, roles?), what data is returned, or how this differs from general person retrieval tools. Given the complexity of inbox/conversation systems and lack of structured metadata, 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%, with the single parameter 'conversationId' adequately documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find conversation IDs or format requirements, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 target resource ('participants of an inbox app conversation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPerson' or 'listPeople' that might also retrieve participant information, preventing a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools for retrieving people-related data (e.g., 'getPerson', 'listPeople'), there's no indication of when this specific inbox-focused tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from general person lookup tools.

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