FileMaker 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 states the tool retrieves a record, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the record ID doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and has no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., record data, error messages), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('layout' as layout name, 'recordId' as FileMaker record ID). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: '指定されたレコードIDのレコードを取得します' translates to 'Retrieves the record for the specified record ID.' This is a specific verb+resource combination (retrieve + record). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fm_get_records' (plural) or 'fm_find_records', which might have different scopes or filtering capabilities.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a layout name), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'fm_get_records' or 'fm_find_records'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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