Codehooks.io 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 retrieval and pattern matching but fails to cover critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential performance impacts of wildcard scans, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with just two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds key functionality (pattern matching). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of retrieved pairs), error conditions, or operational constraints like pagination for large result sets. While conciseness is good, for a retrieval tool with potential wildcard scans, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by 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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters ('key', 'keyspace', 'text') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by hinting at pattern matching ('wildcards') for the 'key' parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('key-value pair(s) from a space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'kv_set' (write) and 'kv_del' (delete) by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read operations like 'query_collection' or 'logs', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage through 'Supports pattern matching with wildcards,' suggesting this tool is for fetching data with flexible key matching. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'query_collection' for structured queries or 'file_list' for file-based data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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