Codehooks.io 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. It states the deletion action but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, permission requirements, error handling for non-existent keys, or side effects. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success confirmation, error responses), whether operations are atomic, or how it interacts with sibling tools like kv_get. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed.

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 three parameters (key, keyspace, json). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value like explaining keyspace hierarchy or JSON output implications.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('key-value pair in a space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kv_get and kv_set by specifying deletion rather than retrieval or setting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like file_delete or drop_collection, which prevents 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 when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites like existing keys, or comparisons to similar tools like file_delete or drop_collection. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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