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. It discloses that the tool is read-only (取得/retrieve) and efficient (効率的に), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the layout doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure level.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies what it doesn't do and its efficiency. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the purpose and efficiency but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return format. For a simple read operation, this is minimally sufficient but could be more comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'layout' documented as 'レイアウト名' (layout name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: '指定されたレイアウトの総レコード数を取得します' (get the total record count for a specified layout). It specifies the verb (取得/retrieve), resource (レコード数/record count), and distinguishes from siblings like fm_get_records or fm_get_record_by_id by emphasizing it only returns count, not record data.

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 on when to use this tool: 'レコードデータは取得せず、カウントのみを効率的に返します' (does not retrieve record data, only returns count efficiently). This implicitly suggests using fm_get_records or fm_get_record_by_id when actual record data is needed, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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