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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists images and returns metadata, which is adequate for a read-only operation, but it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a safe operation. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return value without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for a listing operation. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further. However, it could improve by addressing sibling tool differentiation or behavioral nuances.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters, earning a baseline score. It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted 'no parameters required,' but the current clarity is sufficient.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available ISO images on the NanoKVM device'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nanokvm_mounted_image' or 'nanokvm_mount_iso', which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'nanokvm_mounted_image' (which likely shows currently mounted images) or when to prefer this over other listing or query tools. This lack of contextual usage information limits its helpfulness.

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