Slack MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the action ('Archive'), it doesn't describe what archiving entails (e.g., channel becomes read-only, disappears from lists), permission requirements, whether it's reversible, or rate limits. The description mentions a return dictionary but gives no details about its structure or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. While it states the purpose and documents the parameter, it lacks crucial behavioral context about permissions, consequences, and error handling. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to explain what archiving entails in this system.

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 description provides a clear explanation of the single parameter ('channel_id') with an example format ('C01234567'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter, the description effectively documents it, though it could mention where to find channel IDs or validation rules.

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 ('Archive') and target resource ('a Slack channel'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_channel' or 'list_channels'. It provides a complete verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences of archiving, or when to choose archiving over other channel management options. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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