followupboss-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated beyond the limit/offset parameters, or what format the returned events will have. The description merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful 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 extremely concise at just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - while there's no wasted text, the description may be too minimal for a tool that likely returns complex email marketing event data.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'email marketing event' in this system, what fields events contain, whether there are filtering options beyond pagination, or how results are structured. The combination of minimal description and missing structured documentation creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 events' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email marketing events'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listEmCampaigns' or 'listEvents', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes email marketing events from other event types in this system.

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 'listEvents' and 'listEmCampaigns' present, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for email-specific events, how it relates to general events, or what prerequisites might exist for accessing email marketing data.

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