NanoKVM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a reset action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to ongoing operations, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance, with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly 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 complexity (a reset operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or effects, which are important for a reset tool, leaving room for improvement despite the output schema.

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 information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add param details, but since it's a zero-param tool, it compensates well by focusing on usage context, earning a high score for semantic clarity in this context.

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 verb ('Reset') and resource ('HID (keyboard/mouse) devices'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nanokvm_hdmi_reset' or 'nanokvm_power_cycle', which might also address input issues, so it falls short of 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 clear context for when to use the tool ('if keyboard or mouse input stops working'), which helps guide usage effectively. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, such as 'nanokvm_power_cycle' for broader resets, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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