Attio Simple 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 mentions filtering, sorting, and return details, but lacks critical behavioral traits such as pagination handling (beyond the limit parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Search'). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds specific, non-redundant information about filtering, sorting, and return details, with zero waste or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic functionality but lacks behavioral context like pagination, error handling, or performance limits. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail on return structure or operational constraints would improve completeness.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by text and date ranges, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for companies'), resource ('in Attio CRM'), and scope ('Supports filtering by text... and date ranges'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_company (which retrieves a single company) and search_people (which searches for people instead of companies).

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 implies usage context through 'Supports filtering...' and 'All filters are optional,' suggesting this is for flexible company searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company (for specific IDs) or create_company (for new entries), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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