x-ai-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that encrypted conversations are fetched from XChat and decrypted if a private key is available, and mentions the default count. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on encryption and parameters in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (handling encrypted DMs), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, encryption behavior, and the single parameter. However, it could benefit from mentioning output format or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates by explaining the 'count' parameter's purpose and default value, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't detail constraints or format, but provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 ('List') and resource ('all DM conversations'), distinguishing between regular and encrypted types. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'x_list_dms' by explicitly mentioning encryption handling and XChat integration, providing a precise scope.

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 for retrieving DM conversations with encryption details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'x_list_dms' or 'x_message_requests'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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