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. It states the action ('Send a message') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, whether messages are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the missing annotations.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a mutation tool (sending messages) with no annotations, more details on permissions, side effects, or error handling would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'chat_id' as 'The chat room ID', 'content' as 'Message text', and 'recipients' as 'Comma-separated participant names to @mention'. However, it doesn't clarify format details (e.g., ID format, text length limits, mention syntax) or the optional nature of 'recipients' (schema shows it defaults to null).

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 'Send a message in a chat room' - a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('message in a chat room'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_user_chat' (creates chat) or 'list_user_chat_messages' (lists messages) by focusing on sending messages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_agent_chat_message' which might be similar but for agent chats.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing chat room), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_agent_chat_message' for agent chats. The only implied context is sending messages, but no explicit usage rules are provided.

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