@deva-me/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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' and 'free,' implying a read-only, cost-free operation, but doesn't detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though not contradictory.

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: 'Get authentication and agent account status (free).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail ('free') without waste. Every word earns its place, 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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or sibling differentiation. For a simple status-check tool, this might be adequate, but gaps in transparency and guidelines prevent a higher score.

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 doesn't add param info, but with zero params, the baseline is 4 as it adequately handles the lack of inputs without requiring compensation. No evidence of added meaning beyond schema, but that's acceptable here.

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's purpose: 'Get authentication and agent account status (free).' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'authentication and agent account status,' making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_agent_me_get' or 'deva_agent_profile_get,' which might offer similar agent-related information, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'free' but doesn't explain if this is a prerequisite for other tools or when to choose it over siblings like 'deva_agent_me_get.' Without explicit context or exclusions, usage is implied at best, scoring low due to lack of actionable guidance.

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