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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists messages, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (e.g., default page size), error handling, or what the output contains. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like permissions or pagination details. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a list operation with filtering, more usage guidance would improve completeness.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'chat_id' as 'The chat room ID (required)', 'page' as 'Page number (optional)', 'page_size' as 'Items per page (optional)', 'message_type' with examples like 'text', 'tool_call', and 'since' as 'ISO 8601 timestamp to filter messages after (optional)'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 messages in a chat room.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('messages in a chat room'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_user_chats' or 'get_user_chat', which focus on chat rooms rather than messages within them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_user_chats' (for listing chat rooms) or 'get_user_chat' (for getting chat room details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing chat room. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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