followupboss-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination mechanics (implied by 'next' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with 27 parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The two sentences efficiently cover filtering examples and specific parameter usage notes without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex tool with 27 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, and operational constraints. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds some semantic context by listing example filter fields (name, email, phone, tags, etc.) and providing specific guidance for tag and email filtering. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 27 parameters thoroughly, so the description's added value is minimal beyond reinforcing a subset of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'List/search people in FUB.' It specifies the resource (people) and the action (list/search), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchPeopleByTag' or 'getPerson'.

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 such as 'getPerson' (for single-person retrieval) or 'searchPeopleByTag' (for tag-specific searches). It lists filtering capabilities but does not indicate when this tool is preferred over other list/search tools.

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