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 'List all automations' but does not reveal any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only, includes drafts). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 'List all automations'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like pagination handling, response format, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an 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 clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'List all automations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('automations'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or filtering compared to sibling tools like 'getAutomation' (singular retrieval) or 'listAutomationsPeople' (related but different resource), leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for bulk retrieval vs. specific lookups or how it differs from 'getAutomation' or other list tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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