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 mentions pagination support, which is useful, but does not describe other critical behaviors: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structure of records). For a tool that likely interacts with a database or system, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 that states the core action and includes pagination support. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating key points, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 data retrieval tool with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover authentication needs, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 (layout, limit, offset) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the significance of 'layout' in context, how pagination works with limit/offset, or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 states the purpose ('retrieve records from a specified layout') which is clear but lacks specificity about what kind of records or system this refers to. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'fm_get_record_by_id' (retrieval by ID vs layout) but not clearly from 'fm_find_records' or 'fm_global_search_data' which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but could be more precise about the domain/context.

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 mentions pagination support, but does not specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'fm_find_records' or 'fm_global_search_data', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requires authentication). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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