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 discloses the OR matching behavior for multiple tags and the comma-separated format, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination details beyond the offset parameter, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter format with a concrete example. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, making it easy for an AI 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 moderate complexity (search with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core functionality and parameter format but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a search tool with three parameters, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds semantic context for the 'tags' parameter by explaining the comma-separated format and OR matching behavior, which complements the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning for 'limit' or 'offset' beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Find all people with one or more tags') and resource ('people'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'listPeople' (which lists all people without filtering) and 'getPerson' (which retrieves a single person by ID). The description explicitly mentions tag-based filtering as its unique purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for people based on tags. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools (e.g., use 'listPeople' for unfiltered listing, 'getPersonByEmail' for email-based search).

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