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. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it describes what each action does (e.g., short press vs. long press durations), notes hardware limitations (Pi 5 has no reset button), and warns about deprecated usage. This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured breakdown of the 'action' parameter with bullet points and critical notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without 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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains the parameter thoroughly and covers key behavioral aspects. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what the tool returns, though the output schema may handle that.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single parameter 'action' with detailed semantics: defines each enum value, specifies button press durations, clarifies normal vs. force off behaviors, and warns about deprecation and hardware compatibility. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare enum in the 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 tool's purpose: 'Control the target machine's power.' This specifies the verb ('control') and resource ('target machine's power'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nanokvm_power_cycle' beyond the note about Pi 5 compatibility.

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 specific actions (e.g., 'power' for normal on/off, 'power_long' for force off) and when not to use 'reset' on Raspberry Pi 5, suggesting 'nanokvm_power_cycle' as an alternative. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other power-related siblings in broader scenarios.

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