Pararam Nexus MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the recursive gathering of replies, the default limit of 100 messages, and the return format (flat list sorted by post_no with reply_to_post_no for tree reconstruction). However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with potential data volume implications.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action, the second details the recursive behavior, and the subsequent sections provide essential parameter and output information without 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, recursive logic) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output behavior adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more operational context like error handling or performance considerations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'chat_id' and 'root_message_id' are explained in context, and 'limit' is described as 'Maximum number of recent messages to load and search' with a default. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify data types or constraints more explicitly.

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 ('Build a conversation thread'), the resource ('starting from a root message'), and the scope ('recursively' gathering replies). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_chat_messages' (which likely lists messages without thread reconstruction) and 'search_messages' (which searches content rather than building thread structure).

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: for reconstructing threaded conversations from a root message. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for flat message lists or non-threaded contexts) or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context suggests differentiation from tools like 'get_chat_messages'.

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