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 this is a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args' section. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description covers the basics but lacks depth. It explains parameters well, but with no annotations and an output schema present, it misses behavioral context like error handling or usage scenarios. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in 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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'chat_id' is required and identifies the chat room, and specifies that 'participant_type' is optional with allowed values 'User' or 'Agent'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('participants in a chat room'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_agent_chat_participants' or 'list_user_peers', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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. With siblings like 'list_agent_chat_participants' and 'list_user_peers' available, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions that would help an agent choose appropriately between these participant-listing tools.

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