@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 adds useful context about pricing ('10₭ ($0.01) per search'), which is a behavioral trait not covered by the schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'X content' specifically entails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and pricing. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and pricing but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'max_results'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax or result format, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('Search X content') and the resource ('via Deva resources'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'deva_ai_web_search' or 'deva_social_agents_search', which likely have different search scopes or targets.

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. With sibling tools like 'deva_ai_web_search' and 'deva_social_agents_search', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or application, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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