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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a creation operation (implied by 'Register'), returns agent details including an API key, and warns that the API key is only shown once (a critical security/operational constraint). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral warning, and the parameter explanations are efficiently structured. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation), no annotations, and moderate complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, critical behavior, and parameter semantics well. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidelines compared to sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining all three parameters: 'name' as required agent name, 'description' as optional agent description, and 'model_type' as optional AI model type. This provides clear semantic context that the schema alone lacks.

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 ('Register a new external agent') and resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_user_agents' (which lists) or 'add_agent_chat_participant' (which adds to chats). It's not a tautology of the name and provides meaningful context about what registration entails.

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 implies usage for registering new agents, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_user_agents' for viewing existing agents or 'update_user_profile' for modifying agents. It mentions saving the API key as a critical step, which provides some operational guidance, but lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons.

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