@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 full burden. It discloses pricing behavior (1₭ per 100 chars), which is valuable context not in the schema. However, it fails to describe critical behavioral traits: what the output looks like (audio format, duration), whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, error conditions, or rate limits. For a generative tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core function, the second provides critical pricing information. There's zero waste, no redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 (generative AI service), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and pricing, but misses essential context: output format (audio type, quality), behavioral constraints (rate limits, authentication needs), error handling, and how to interpret results. For a TTS tool that likely produces binary audio data, this leaves too many unknowns for proper agent usage.

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 (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately focuses on the tool's core functionality and pricing without unnecessary parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description covers essential context.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'text-to-speech audio', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deva_ai_embeddings or deva_ai_image_generate by specifying TTS functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other audio-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 pricing information, which hints at cost considerations, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other TTS or audio tools. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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