@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 the action is 'free', which is useful, but lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure (e.g., error if already following), or if it's idempotent. For a social action 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 that front-loads the core action ('Follow an agent username') and adds clarifying context in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 social action nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, error conditions, return values (e.g., success confirmation or follow status), and how it integrates with sibling tools like 'deva_social_followers_get'. The 'free' hint is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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% (the 'username' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Agent username.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 action ('Follow') and resource ('an agent username'), with the parenthetical adding context about it being a 'free social graph action'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_social_unfollow' or 'deva_social_following_get', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'deva_social_unfollow' or 'deva_social_agents_search', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or typical use cases. The parenthetical 'free social graph action' hints at cost but doesn't specify alternatives for paid actions.

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