FileMaker MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is '便利です' (useful) but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (field metadata, counts, etc.), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a search tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral transparency about what the tool returns and how it behaves. The description mentions it's 'useful for investigating database structure' which helps, but doesn't complete the picture for an agent trying to understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully documents all 3 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions field name patterns and field type filtering, which the schema already covers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate 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 tool's purpose: '全レイヤウトを横断してフィールドを検索します' (search fields across all layouts). It specifies the resource (fields) and action (search) with filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fm_global_search_data' which searches data rather than fields.

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 implied usage context: 'データベース構造の調査やフィールド命名規則の確認に便利です' (useful for investigating database structure and checking field naming conventions). This gives general guidance but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'fm_get_layout_metadata' or 'fm_global_search_data', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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