@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 implies no cost and read-only operation, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond cursor/limit parameters, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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 functionality efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works with cursor/limit, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from similar social tools. The 'free read' hint is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 all parameters (username, limit, cursor). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'agent username' which aligns with the schema's 'Agent username' description, but provides no additional context about format, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 'following list for an agent username', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deva_social_followers_get' by specifying 'following' rather than 'followers', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other social tools like 'deva_social_feed_get' or 'deva_social_agents_search'.

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 tool is appropriate compared to other social tools like 'deva_social_followers_get' or 'deva_social_agents_search', nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints beyond the basic functionality.

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