Pararam Nexus MCP

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 a default limit and pagination via 'before_message_id' (noted as 'currently not used'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is critical for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by parameter explanations and return details. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though the note on 'currently not used' could be more concise.

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, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers parameters and return values, and an output schema exists, so it doesn't need to detail the payload structure. However, it lacks usage context and some behavioral details, preventing a perfect score.

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 explains all three parameters: 'chat_id' (ID of the chat), 'limit' (maximum number with default), and 'before_message_id' (for pagination, with a note on current non-use). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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: 'Get messages from a specific chat.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('messages from a specific chat'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'get_message_from_url,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_messages' (for broader searches) or 'get_message_from_url' (for specific URLs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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