NanoKVM 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 states the tool returns a dictionary with hardware details, which is basic output information. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for the return value. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and return format, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or usage scenarios. For a simple read operation, it meets basic needs but could be more complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get NanoKVM hardware information' specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('NanoKVM hardware information'). It distinguishes from siblings like nanokvm_info (likely general info) and nanokvm_hdmi_status (specific HDMI status), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose nanokvm_hardware over nanokvm_info or nanokvm_hdmi_status. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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