46elks 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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, potential rate limits, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format). While 'Retrieve' implies reading, the lack of detail about behavioral traits is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 for a retrieval tool with two parameters. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like, how historical messages are organized, or any behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for proper tool invocation remains inadequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('direction' and 'limit') fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but provides no 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('SMS message history from 46elks'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this retrieval tool from sibling tools like 'check_sms_status' or 'get_delivery_statistics', which might also involve SMS message data access.

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 like 'check_sms_status' or 'get_delivery_statistics'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient information to make informed usage decisions among related SMS tools.

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