@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 pricing (80₭ standard, 160₭ HD per image), which indicates cost implications but doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what the output format is (e.g., URL, base64), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool (image generation implies creation).

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 very concise (two short sentences) with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but it's not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., core functionality details).

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 complexity of an image generation tool (a mutation operation with potential side effects like costs), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details: what inputs drive the generation (e.g., prompts, styles), output format, error handling, and operational constraints. The pricing info is useful but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 (parameter count: 0), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps. While it doesn't mention parameters, this is acceptable since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.

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 states 'Generate image content' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'deva_ai_image_generate'. It doesn't specify what kind of images, from what inputs, or for what purpose. While it mentions pricing details, this doesn't clarify the core functionality beyond the obvious from the name.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to sibling tools like 'deva_ai_vision_analyze' (which might analyze rather than generate) or 'deva_storage_file_upload' (which might handle existing images). The pricing information hints at cost considerations but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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