Thenvoi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves participants and returns JSON, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 with four sentences: purpose statement, scope clarification, parameter explanation, and return format. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Minor room for improvement in flow, but generally efficient.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral details like authentication, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for a tool interacting with chat systems.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter: 'chat_id: The unique identifier of the chat room (required).' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying it's a required identifier. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately covers it.

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: 'List participants in a chat room' and specifies it retrieves both users and agents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_agent_chats' or 'list_user_chat_participants' by focusing on agent chat participants, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_user_chat_participants' which handles user chats.

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 context: 'where the agent is a member' suggests this tool is for agent-managed chats. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'list_user_chat_participants' or other chat-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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