Select a Valkey or Redis instance to direct subsequent diagnostic and monitoring operations.
Select which instance subsequent tool calls operate on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instanceId | Yes | The instance ID to select |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.2v0.20.1v0.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a state-change effect without detailing persistence, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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 concise with one sentence, but it is somewhat under-informative. It earns a 4 for brevity, but could include more detail without being verbose.
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 simple state-setting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it omits context like session scope or error behavior, making it minimally complete.
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 single parameter 'instanceId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 selects an instance for subsequent calls, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_default_connection' which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer the context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.