@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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that it 'persist[s] returned API key' and is an 'auth tool; no resource charge', indicating authentication behavior and cost implications. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or what 'persist' entails (e.g., storage location), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 action ('Register a new Deva agent') and includes essential behavioral notes ('persist returned API key', 'auth tool; no resource charge') without any wasted words, making it highly concise 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 as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete by covering purpose and key behaviors like authentication and cost. However, it lacks details on what the registration entails (e.g., success criteria, error cases) and doesn't explain the return value (e.g., the API key format), leaving room for improvement in context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'description') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Register a new Deva agent') and the resource ('Deva agent'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'deva_agent_me_update' or 'deva_agent_verify', which might involve agent-related operations but aren't registration tools, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 for registering new agents and mentions it's an 'auth tool; no resource charge', which provides some context on when to use it (for authentication setup without cost). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to use 'deva_agent_verify' instead, leaving guidance incomplete.

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