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. 'Install' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether installations are reversible, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple installation operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful installation, what data is returned, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other inbox app management tools. The minimal description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for an agent to use this tool confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'url') with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter meaning, format expectations, or relationships between parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Install') and target resource ('an inbox app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listInboxAppInstallations' or 'inboxAppDeactivate', which would require mentioning this is specifically for creating/adding new installations rather than listing or managing existing ones.

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 sibling tools like 'listInboxAppInstallations' (for viewing) and 'inboxAppDeactivate' (for removal), there's no indication that this is specifically for initial installation versus reactivation or other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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