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 returns a dictionary with mounted image info or None if nothing is mounted, which clarifies the output behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., network issues), performance characteristics, or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool that interacts with hardware.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return behavior without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, and the output schema will handle return value details. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus siblings, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent navigating multiple tools.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's function and return value. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter information is required, and the description adds value by explaining the output.

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 information about the currently mounted ISO image.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('currently mounted ISO image'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nanokvm_list_images' or 'nanokvm_unmount_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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an ISO must be mounted first), compare it to 'nanokvm_list_images' (which lists available images), or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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