Element MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about what information is returned (room name, topic, creation info, member list), which is useful but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter info in a structured format. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args and Returns sections slightly duplicate schema information without adding value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of an output schema by detailing return value structures or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with the parameter 'room_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The Matrix room ID'. The description repeats this information in the Args section without adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific Matrix room', specifying it returns room name, topic, members, and other state information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'matrix_list_rooms' (which likely lists multiple rooms) or 'matrix_get_messages' (which focuses on messages rather than room metadata).

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 sibling tools like 'matrix_list_rooms' for listing rooms or 'matrix_get_messages' for message retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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