Himalaya MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool generates/returns a template but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by return details and parameter explanations. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter section could be more integrated for better flow.

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 an output schema exists, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for safe and effective use, as it doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or interaction with siblings.

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 meaningful semantics: envelope_id is for 'The envelope/message ID to forward,' folder is 'Folder name' with a default, and account is 'Account name' with a default if omitted. This clarifies parameter roles beyond schema titles, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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: 'Generate a forward template for a message' and 'Returns an MML template pre-filled with forwarded message content.' It specifies the verb (generate/return) and resource (forward template/MML template), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like template_reply or template_write beyond the 'forwarded' context.

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 when forwarding a message by referencing 'forwarded message content,' but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like template_reply or template_write. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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