meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm idempotency, disclose whether messages are marked as read when fetched, explain rate limits, or describe the return value structure (e.g., message content, timestamps, sender info).

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the lack of annotations and behavioral details, it borders on underspecification rather than optimal conciseness. Every word earns its place, but more words were needed.

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 tool supports pagination (evident from 'after' and 'limit' parameters), requires a conversation identifier likely obtained from another tool, and returns message data (no output schema provided), the description is insufficient. It omits critical context about the data retrieval workflow, pagination handling, and response expectations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all three parameters ('conversation_id', 'limit', 'after'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though the phrase 'specific DM conversation' provides context for the conversation_id. It does not explain that conversation_id must be obtained from 'ig_get_conversations' or how pagination flows work.

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 messages') and scope ('in a specific DM conversation'), identifying the resource being accessed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ig_get_message' (singular) or 'ig_get_conversations', which would help the agent understand the plural vs. singular retrieval pattern.

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, nor does it explain the prerequisite workflow (e.g., that one must first call 'ig_get_conversations' to obtain the required 'conversation_id'). There is no mention of pagination strategy using the 'after' parameter.

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