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. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'limit', 'next', 'offset' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all events or a subset). The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List events from FUB') and briefly mentions filtering. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, error conditions, and when to use versus siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guessing or trial-and-error.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing some filter examples ('personId, type, property address, etc.') but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List events') and resource ('from FUB'), and mentions filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from other list tools by specifying 'events' rather than people, deals, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getEvent' which retrieves a single event. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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 like 'getEvent' (for single events) or other list tools (e.g., 'listPeople', 'listDeals'). It mentions filtering parameters but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or required. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are included.

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