NanoKVM 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 and does so well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), returns a dictionary with specific boolean fields, and explains what each LED indicates. It doesn't mention rate limits or errors, but covers essential behavior clearly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise breakdown of the return values. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, behavior, and output format. A minor gap is the lack of error handling or edge case details, but it adequately covers the core functionality for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, adding value by explaining the return structure and meaning of 'pwr' and 'hdd' fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('power and HDD LED status of the target machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like power control or screenshot tools. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 for monitoring LED states, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other status tools like 'nanokvm_hdmi_status' or 'nanokvm_info'). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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