Pararam Nexus MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only nature (implied by 'Get') and specifies the return structure, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a real-time check vs cached data. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return description. The Args/Returns sections are clear but slightly redundant with the opening sentence. Every sentence adds value, though minor tightening is possible.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema present, the description does well. It covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on semantics rather than duplicating schema details.

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 provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters: user_id ('User ID to check') and team_id ('Optional team ID to check status in specific team'). It explains the conditional behavior when team_id is omitted. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('user's status in teams'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on team membership status rather than chat/message/user operations. It explicitly lists the possible status values (member, admin, guest, or not in team).

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 the optional team_id parameter ('to check status in specific team' vs 'returns status in all teams'), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_user_info or search_users. No explicit 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.