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 but offers none. 'List tasks' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm this, nor does it describe any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no tasks exist. The description adds no context beyond the minimal implication of listing.

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 with just two words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks essential information that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it fails to earn its place by providing meaningful value.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' are in this context, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's operation, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use it 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 all five parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'limit' for maximum results, 'offset' for pagination). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as default values, constraints, or usage examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 tasks' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful elaboration. It doesn't specify what kind of tasks (e.g., from a project management system, CRM, or other context) or what scope is involved (e.g., all tasks, filtered tasks, user-specific tasks). While it distinguishes from non-list siblings like 'createTask' or 'deleteTask', it fails to differentiate from similar list operations like 'listActionPlans' or 'listPeople' beyond the resource name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with other list operations (e.g., 'listPeople' for different resources). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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