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 the mutation action ('Removes'), authorization requirements ('owner or admin'), and expected outcome ('Success message confirming removal'). However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., what happens to chat history), error conditions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary value: clarifying scope, stating prerequisites, documenting parameters, and describing returns. There is no redundant or wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (mutation with authorization), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and outcomes. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or side effects, which are important for a destructive operation like removal.

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. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'chat_id' is 'The unique identifier of the chat room' and 'participant_id' is 'The participant's ID to remove', clarifying their roles beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't specify format examples (e.g., UUIDs) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Remove a participant') and resource ('from a chat room'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_agent_chat_participant' or 'remove_user_chat_participant' by specifying it applies to both users and agents in agent chats. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 context for when to use this tool ('The acting agent must be the owner or admin of the room'), which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as distinguishing between agent vs. user chat variants.

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