Thenvoi MCP Server

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 states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value: clarifying scope, detailing the parameter, and stating the return format. There is no wasted text, and it follows a logical structure.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations and a single parameter, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. It covers the basics but could be more comprehensive for a tool that retrieves sensitive chat data.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'chat_id' is 'The unique identifier of the chat room (required)', which clarifies its purpose and requirement. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could provide format examples (e.g., UUID).

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 purpose as 'Get a specific chat room by ID' and 'Retrieves detailed information about a single chat room where the agent is a participant', which specifies the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (chat room). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agent_chats' by focusing on a single item, but could be more explicit about the differentiation.

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 when needing detailed info for a specific chat room ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_chat_context' or 'list_agent_chats'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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