FileMaker MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the authentication mechanism and optional parameter usage, but doesn't describe what happens on successful login (e.g., session token returned), error conditions, rate limits, or security implications. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important usage information about environment variables. Every word earns its place with zero wasted content.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and parameter handling. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (session token, success indicator, etc.), error handling, or security considerations, which are important for a login operation. The description is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with their types and descriptions. The description mentions that parameters can be omitted when using environment variables, which adds marginal context about parameter usage but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation.

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 ('ログインしてセッションを確立します' - login and establish a session) and the target resource ('FileMakerサーバー' - FileMaker server). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fm_logout or fm_validate_session by focusing on initial authentication rather than session termination or validation.

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 about when to use this tool (to establish a session with FileMaker server) and mentions that parameters can be omitted if authentication credentials are loaded from environment variables. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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