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 it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but does not confirm this or add any context about rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it is overly brief and could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list of people objects, their roles in automations) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a list tool with filtering parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Filter by person', 'Filter by automation'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filters interact or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 people in automations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('people in automations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'people in automations' means (e.g., participants, targets, or members) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'listPeople' or 'listActionPlansPeople', which are similar list operations on related resources.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'listPeople' or when filtering by automation or person is appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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