Thenvoi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The parameter explanations are brief but could be slightly more informative about defaults or behavior.

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, it should provide more context about pagination behavior, authentication, or filtering. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for optimal agent understanding.

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 documents both parameters (page and page_size) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify default values, valid ranges, or pagination mechanics, leaving important details uncovered.

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 chat rooms where the user is a participant.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('chat rooms'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_agent_chats by focusing on user participation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_user_chat_participants or list_user_chat_messages, which prevents a perfect score.

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 multiple sibling tools like list_agent_chats, list_user_chat_participants, and get_user_chat, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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