@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 pricing, which is useful context, but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens after the URL is obtained (e.g., expiration, upload process), or error handling. For a tool that likely involves external uploads, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds pricing in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 handling file uploads via presigned URLs, the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to supplement it, and it lacks details on authentication, URL usage, response format, or error cases. The pricing info is helpful but insufficient for an AI agent to understand the full behavioral context, leaving significant gaps.

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% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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: 'Request a presigned upload URL for a file.' It specifies the verb ('request') and resource ('presigned upload URL'), making the action distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_storage_file_download' or 'deva_storage_file_list', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 mentions pricing information ('1₭ ($0.001) per upload'), but this does not help an AI agent decide between this tool and other storage or upload-related siblings. There is no explicit context, exclusions, or named alternatives provided.

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