@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'free read' as a behavioral trait, which hints at cost-free access but omits critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, sorting). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every part ('List message conversations', 'free read') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and key behavioral trait.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a read tool with pagination parameters. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how 'free read' interacts with system constraints. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output info, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying listing functionality, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('message conversations'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_messaging_outbox' by specifying 'inbox' context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other messaging tools like 'deva_messaging_thread_get' or 'deva_messaging_send'.

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 reading inbox conversations, with 'free read' suggesting no cost or restrictions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'deva_messaging_outbox' or 'deva_messaging_thread_get'. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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