@deva-me/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 states 'free read' which hints at no cost and read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'outbox messages' entail (e.g., sent messages, pending messages). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get outbox messages') and adds a brief qualifier ('free read'). There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and read operations. It lacks details on return values (e.g., message format, pagination structure), error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit' as 'Page size' and 'cursor' as 'Pagination cursor'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('outbox messages'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other messaging tools like 'deva_messaging_inbox' by specifying 'outbox' rather than inbox. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deva_messaging_thread_get' or other messaging tools beyond the basic scope.

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 like 'deva_messaging_inbox' or 'deva_messaging_thread_get'. It mentions 'free read' which might imply cost considerations, but this is vague and doesn't offer clear usage rules or exclusions.

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