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. 'List calls' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it might be), what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place - it provides almost no value beyond the tool name itself. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, which this description fails to achieve.

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 a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description 'List calls' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what authentication is required, or how it differs from other list/search tools. For a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 all parameters (limit, next, offset, personId) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 calls' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of calls, from what system, or what scope (e.g., all calls, filtered calls, recent calls). While the name suggests listing calls, the description fails to elaborate beyond this basic restatement.

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. There are many sibling tools (e.g., getCall, listPeople, listEvents), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for retrieving all calls, filtered calls, or something else. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to other list/search tools is given.

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