@deva-me/mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'free read' which suggests no cost and read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond cursor parameter, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes useful parenthetical context. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list structure, follower data format), doesn't cover authentication or rate limiting, and provides minimal behavioral context. The 'free read' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps in a read operation with pagination.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain username format requirements, typical limit values, or cursor usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Get followers') and target resource ('for an agent username'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_social_following_get' by focusing on followers rather than following, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The addition of '(free read)' provides useful context but doesn't fully differentiate from other read operations.

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 like 'deva_social_agents_search' or 'deva_social_following_get'. The description mentions 'free read' which hints at cost implications, but doesn't specify any prerequisites, constraints, or comparative scenarios for tool selection.

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