miro-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the log scope ('local', 'this session only') and filtering capabilities, which aren't covered by annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates scope, purpose, and filtering options without any redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 read-only nature (annotations), comprehensive parameter documentation (100% schema coverage), and presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers scope, purpose, and filtering capabilities adequately for an audit query tool.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description lists filterable fields (time range, tool, board, action type, success/failure) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Query local audit log') and resource ('MCP tool executions'), with precise scope ('this session only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on audit logs rather than board/item operations, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 'this session only' and filter parameters, suggesting it's for reviewing recent tool activity. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other audit or logging tools, or any prerequisites for accessing audit data.

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