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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't describe return format, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place, though the parameter section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate 'Args' block.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a list operation with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about pagination behavior, result format, and how this tool differs from similar listing tools among the many siblings.

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 adds basic parameter explanations ('Page number', 'Items per page') that provide some semantic context beyond the schema's technical definitions. However, it doesn't specify default values, valid ranges, or how pagination works in practice, leaving important gaps.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('agents owned by the user'), providing specific functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_agent_peers' or 'list_agent_chats', which could cause confusion about 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_agent_peers' or 'list_agent_chats'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or specific use cases, offering only basic functional information.

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