Codehooks.io MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation/write) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing keys, error conditions, or what happens on success. The optional TTL parameter suggests expiration behavior, but this isn't explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the core purpose upfront. It wastes no words and gets directly to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core operation from the optional features for better readability.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what the tool returns, error conditions, or permission requirements. The mention of TTL and keyspace is minimal without explaining their significance. Given the complexity and lack of supporting structured data, the description should provide more complete operational context.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional TTL and keyspace' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set key-value pair') and the resource ('in a space'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling kv_get (read) and kv_del (delete) by specifying a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'space' refers to in this context.

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 like kv_get or kv_del. It mentions optional parameters (TTL and keyspace) but doesn't explain their use cases or when they're appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for using this tool.

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