@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only adds that the operation is 'free', which hints at cost but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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—a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get profile for the authenticated agent') and adds a minor but relevant detail ('free'). There is zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse. It misses key context like what data the profile contains, how authentication works, or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that likely involves user identity and permissions.

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 documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond 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 action ('Get profile') and target ('for the authenticated agent'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'deva_agent_profile_get' or 'deva_agent_me_update', leaving ambiguity about why this specific tool exists versus those alternatives.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for retrieving the authenticated agent's profile and notes it's free, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'deva_agent_profile_get'. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about tool selection in context.

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