Himalaya MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns sender, subject, date, flags without downloading full bodies, and mentions pagination. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid parameters.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement first, then behavioral context, then parameter details in clear bullet format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words. The parameter explanations are efficiently formatted.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. Since there's an output schema, the description correctly doesn't explain return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral context around authentication, errors, and rate limits.

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 provides meaningful context for all 5 parameters: folder name with example and default, account name with default behavior, pagination parameters with starting value, and query syntax specification. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('List message envelopes'), the resource ('in a folder'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns headers only without full bodies. This differentiates it from tools like message_read that would retrieve full content.

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 listing message metadata rather than full content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like message_read or envelope_thread. It mentions the default folder and account behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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