NanoKVM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Reset') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., temporary video loss), or rate limits. For a tool that likely involves hardware interaction, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or effects. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall completeness is basic.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't create confusion about inputs.

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 ('Reset the HDMI connection') and the resource ('HDMI connection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nanokvm_hdmi_status' by focusing on resetting rather than checking status. However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets reset (e.g., signal, port, device), keeping it from 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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful if video is not displaying correctly'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for basic decision-making.

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