@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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'free read', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but fails to detail other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned replies. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 complexity of a social media tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits), output format (e.g., structure of replies), and usage context compared to siblings. This makes it inadequate for reliable agent operation without additional inference.

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 (post_id, limit, cursor) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how pagination works with limit and cursor or clarifying the post_id format. Baseline 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('replies for a post'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'deva_social_post_get' or 'deva_messaging_thread_get', which might also retrieve social content, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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. For example, it doesn't explain how it differs from 'deva_social_post_get' (which might get the post itself) or 'deva_messaging_thread_get' (which might handle threaded conversations), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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