@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 mentions 'free index query' which hints at search behavior, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a 'limit' parameter), or what format results return. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (search with parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (agent profiles? IDs? partial data?), how results are structured, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('q' as search query, 'limit' as page size). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain query syntax, what fields are searched, default behaviors, or 'limit' constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('agents'), and specifies the search method ('by query string (free index query)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_social_x_search' by focusing on agents rather than general social content, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other agent-related tools like 'deva_agent_me_get' or 'deva_agent_profile_get'.

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 doesn't mention when this search is appropriate compared to other agent-related tools (like 'deva_agent_me_get' for current user's agent or 'deva_agent_profile_get' for specific agents) or other search tools (like 'deva_social_x_search'). No context about prerequisites or limitations is provided.

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