Thenvoi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: authentication requirement ('authenticated agent'), pagination support, and return format ('JSON string containing the list of chat rooms'). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what specific fields the JSON contains.

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, followed by supporting details. Every sentence earns its place: purpose statement, authentication context, pagination note, parameter documentation, and return format. No wasted words.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, authentication, pagination, parameters, and return format. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or rate limit info, but it's largely complete for a list operation.

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 explicitly documents both parameters (page and page_size) with their purposes and optional nature, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. The coverage is complete for the 2 parameters, though it doesn't specify default values or constraints.

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 ('chat rooms where the agent is a participant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_user_chats (user-focused) and list_agent_chat_participants (participants within a specific chat). The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 by specifying 'chat rooms that the authenticated agent participates in,' which helps differentiate it from user-focused chat listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like list_user_chats for user-centric listings.

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