NanoKVM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the behavioral sequence (force off, wait, power on), timing details, and the forceful nature of the operation. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, numbered sequence of operations, and well-organized parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and information is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations but with output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, detailed behavioral sequence, parameter semantics with practical guidance, and return value indication. The output schema handles return format details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only shows parameter name and type), the description adds significant value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Time to wait after power off before powering on'), default value rationale ('ensures clean power cycle'), and practical guidance ('Use longer values if you have slow storage'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 ('power cycle the target machine') with detailed steps (force off, wait, power on) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it's the recommended reset method for Raspberry Pi 5 due to lack of hardware reset button. This goes beyond just restating the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('recommended way to "reset" a Raspberry Pi 5 since it has no hardware reset button') and offers parameter-specific usage advice ('Use longer values (5000+) if you have slow storage'), creating clear context for appropriate tool selection.

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