WayStation 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 mentions retrieving history and including thread replies, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieves conversation history') and includes a key feature ('including thread replies'). There's no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly noting parameters like date ranges). Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and a key feature (thread replies) but lacks details on authentication, data format, error cases, or usage context. Without an output schema, the agent doesn't know what the return looks like (e.g., message objects, metadata). This leaves room for improvement in guiding effective tool use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (channel, limit, oldest, latest, includeThreads). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'including thread replies,' which aligns with the 'includeThreads' parameter but doesn't provide additional context like timestamp formats or channel naming conventions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Retrieves conversation history') and resource ('from a specified Slack channel'), with additional detail about including thread replies. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listSlackChannels' (which lists channels) and 'postSlackMessage' (which creates messages), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 channel access), compare to similar tools like 'listSlackChannels' for discovery, or specify use cases (e.g., for analysis vs. real-time monitoring). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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