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 states the action ('scroll the mouse wheel') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's rate-limited, what happens on error, or the response format. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose important traits beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded, with the core action stated first followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste, making it easy to parse 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 low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks usage context and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains the 'amount' parameter as 'Scroll amount' and clarifies directionality ('Positive = scroll down, negative = scroll up'), which is crucial for correct usage. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('scroll') and resource ('mouse wheel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nanokvm_move' (which likely moves the cursor) and 'nanokvm_click' (which clicks), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 context such as interacting with a remote KVM interface, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other input tools like 'nanokvm_tap' or 'nanokvm_send_key'.

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