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 only states the action ('List') without details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., a list of installed apps with metadata). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves.

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 waste—'List inbox app installations' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'inbox app installations' means, the scope (e.g., per user or workspace), or behavioral aspects like safety or output format. For a tool in a context with many sibling operations, more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like filtering) are involved. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is applied, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 inbox app installations' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('inbox app installations'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inbox app installations' entails (e.g., installed apps in an inbox context) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'inboxAppInstall' or 'inboxAppDeactivate', which are related but different operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for viewing installed apps in an inbox), or comparisons to other tools like 'listWebhooks' or 'listTeams', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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