@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 adds 'free read' which hints at cost/access behavior, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements (implied by 'authenticated agent' but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), return format, or error conditions. For a read operation with no annotations, 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the authenticated agent's social feed') and adds a brief behavioral note ('free read'). Zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, response format, pagination behavior, error handling, and cost implications ('free read' is vague). For a social feed tool with potential complexity in data structure and sibling interactions, 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%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Page size' for limit, 'Pagination cursor' for cursor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 'Get' and resource 'social feed', specifying it's for the 'authenticated agent'. It distinguishes from siblings like deva_social_post_get (specific post) and deva_social_agents_search (search agents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from deva_messaging_inbox which might also involve feed-like content, leaving some ambiguity.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for retrieving a social feed, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., deva_social_post_get for specific posts, deva_messaging_inbox for messages). It mentions 'free read' but doesn't clarify if this is a cost or permission hint. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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