AnythingLLM 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves chat history but doesn't describe what 'chat history' includes (e.g., messages, timestamps, users), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., list of chats, metadata), potential errors, or behavioral constraints. For adequate context, it should provide more details about the output and usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'slug' and 'limit' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a workspace context for 'slug'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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') and resource ('chat history for a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'chat_with_workspace' (interactive chat) and 'clear_chat_history' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 a valid workspace slug), exclusions, or related tools like 'search_workspace' for filtered queries. Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.

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