@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'free download/read', hinting at read-only and possibly cost-free operations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 functionality ('Get metadata or download URL for a file path') and includes a useful note ('free download/read'). There is no wasted text, 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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple read operation. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced usage, which could be critical for an AI agent to use it correctly without structured output guidance.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'File path.' The description adds minimal value by implying the path is used to retrieve metadata or a download URL, but doesn't provide additional context like path format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get metadata or download URL') and resource ('for a file path'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deva_storage_file_list' (list files) and 'deva_storage_file_upload' (upload files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deva_storage_kv_get' (get key-value data), which might be a related storage operation.

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 implies usage context through 'free download/read' and the tool name suggests it's for file operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deva_storage_file_list' for browsing or 'deva_storage_kv_get' for key-value data. The guidance is limited to the implied scope of file access.

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