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. It discloses that the tool returns a list of attachments with specific details (file ID, name, size, download URL), which adds behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are concise and directly informative, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, such as specifying the return payload details.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. The output schema likely covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail that further. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'chat_id' is the 'ID of the chat' and 'post_no' is the 'Post number', clarifying their roles in identifying the specific post. This provides essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of attachments from a specific post'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'download_post_attachment' (which downloads a single attachment) and 'get_chat_messages' (which retrieves messages rather than attachments). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'upload_file_to_chat', which is unrelated but not contrasted.

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 implies usage by specifying it retrieves attachments 'from a specific post', suggesting it should be used when you have a post identifier. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_post_attachment' (for downloading a single file) or 'get_chat_messages' (for message content). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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