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. It states 'List all timeframes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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—just three words—and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'timeframes' are, what data is returned, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for the agent to understand the tool's full context and 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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 all timeframes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('timeframes'), but it lacks specificity about what 'timeframes' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listAppointments' or 'listEvents' that might also involve time-related listings. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'listAppointments', 'listEvents'), there's no indication of whether this is for scheduling, reporting, or other purposes, leaving the agent to guess 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.