@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 full burden. It mentions 'free read', hinting at no cost or read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by cursor/limit but not explained), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 very concise with a single sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids waste but could be more structured by including key usage details, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, permissions), response details, and sibling differentiation, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage in a complex server environment.

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 clear descriptions for 'prefix', 'limit', and 'cursor'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or adding extra meaning.

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 ('List') and resource ('KV keys and values'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_storage_kv_get' (which likely retrieves a single key) or 'deva_storage_file_list' (which lists files instead of KV pairs), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance with '(free read)', implying it's a read operation without cost, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'deva_storage_kv_get' for single keys), or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little context for tool selection among siblings.

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