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' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in context with many sibling tools.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage—baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'List email marketing campaigns' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email marketing campaigns'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listEmEvents' or 'listEvents', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes email marketing campaigns from other listable entities.

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 list tools (e.g., 'listPeople', 'listDeals', 'listEvents'), there's no indication of when email marketing campaigns should be listed specifically, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned.

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