Planning Center Online MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return format options ('markdown' or 'json'), describes the return content ('List of donations with amount, payment method, date, and status'), and mentions error behavior ('Returns "Error: ..." if the request fails'). This significantly enhances behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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 reasonably structured with purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return information. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema, and the overall description could be more front-loaded with critical information. It's adequately concise but not optimally efficient.

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 read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good additional context: it specifies return format options, describes the return content, and mentions error handling. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools, but overall it's reasonably complete for this type of operation.

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 7 parameters. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding meaningful additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'List donations in Planning Center Giving' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pco_get_donation' or 'pco_list_donation_batches', which would require more specific scope information to earn a 5.

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 like 'pco_get_donation' (for single donation) or 'pco_list_donation_batches'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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