@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 read' which suggests no cost, but doesn't cover other important aspects: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., what happens if key doesn't exist), or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place - 'Get' (action), 'KV value' (resource), 'by key' (method), and '(free read)' (cost implication). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'KV' means, what format the returned value will be in, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The '(free read)' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing contextual information needed for proper tool invocation.

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% with the single parameter 'key' well-documented in the schema as 'KV key.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('Get') and resource ('KV value by key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'deva_storage_kv_list' which also retrieves KV data, nor does it explain what 'KV' stands for (key-value storage). The description is specific but lacks sibling 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 like 'deva_storage_kv_list' for listing keys or 'deva_storage_kv_set' for setting values. The parenthetical '(free read)' hints at cost implications but doesn't explicitly state when this is the appropriate choice among KV operations. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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