@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'free,' which hints at no cost, but fails to describe other key traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), any rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get a public profile by agent name') and adds a useful note about cost ('free'). There is no wasted text, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned in the profile, potential errors (e.g., if the agent name doesn't exist), or behavioral aspects like rate limits. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Agent name to fetch.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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') and resource ('public profile by agent name'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_agent_me_get' by specifying it's for public profiles rather than the user's own. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'public profile' entails (e.g., what data is returned), which prevents 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 implies usage by mentioning 'free' and 'public profile,' suggesting it's for retrieving non-personal data without cost. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deva_agent_me_get' (for the user's own profile) or 'deva_social_agents_search' (for searching agents), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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