@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 the full burden. It mentions authentication ('as the authenticated agent') and cost ('check catalog/estimate for current charge'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a post ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('Create a new social post') and includes essential context (authentication and cost check). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers authentication and cost, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent might struggle with full operational understanding, though the description provides a basic starting point.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on usage context. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description compensates by providing guidance without unnecessary detail.

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 'Create' and the resource 'social post', specifying it's done 'as the authenticated agent'. It distinguishes from siblings like deva_social_post_get (read) and deva_social_post_react (interact). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from deva_messaging_send (which might be for private messages) or specify the social platform, 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 clear context: use this to create a social post as the authenticated agent, and it mentions checking 'catalog/estimate for current charge', which implies a cost consideration. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., deva_messaging_send for private messages), but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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