DevDocs 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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('limpia' implies removal/deletion) and explains the scope of destruction (all cache vs specific technology). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like temporary performance impact or whether the operation requires specific permissions.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the two usage modes, and the examples provide immediate clarity without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and provides examples. The only minor gap is the lack of information about what happens after execution (success indicators, potential errors, or system state changes).

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples of parameter usage ('tech="python~3.10"') and explaining the semantic difference between providing vs not providing the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's technical documentation to show practical application.

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 a specific verb ('limpia' - cleans) and resource ('caché local' - local cache). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cache_stats (which reads cache) by performing a destructive operation. The description explicitly covers both full and partial cache clearing scenarios.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different parameter configurations: 'Sin parámetros: limpia TODO el caché' (without parameters: cleans ALL cache) versus 'tech="python~3.10": limpia solo caché de Python 3.10' (cleans only Python 3.10 cache). This gives clear alternatives within the same tool based on the user's needs.

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