@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 mentions 'free read' which hints at a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'free' entails (e.g., no cost, no authentication). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses user data.

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 very concise—a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the parenthetical 'free read' could be better integrated. There's no wasted text, but it might be overly brief for a tool with no annotations.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'message thread' contains, the format of the return value, or any behavioral nuances. For a read operation that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'thread_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('message thread by id'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_messaging_inbox' or 'deva_messaging_outbox' which might also retrieve message threads, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 mentions 'free read' but doesn't explain what that means in context or how it differs from other messaging tools like 'deva_messaging_inbox' or 'deva_messaging_reply'.

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