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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it creates a new processing attempt with auto-incremented attempt numbers, sets status to 'processing', records a system-managed timestamp, and updates delivery status. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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, with each sentence earning its place. It starts with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, details automatic behaviors, and includes parameter and return value explanations without redundancy. The information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 (a state-changing operation with no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behaviors, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or concurrency considerations, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly explains that 'chat_id' is 'the unique identifier of the chat room' and 'message_id' is 'the ID of the message to mark as processing', clarifying their roles and requirements ('required'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 specific action ('mark a message as being processed by the agent') and resource ('message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mark_agent_message_failed' and 'mark_agent_message_processed'. It explicitly defines the verb ('mark'), target ('message'), and actor ('agent'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this when the agent starts working on a message.' It also implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'mark_agent_message_failed' or 'mark_agent_message_processed' by specifying it's for the 'processing' stage, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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