Retrieve the value stored at a specified Redis key, enabling direct inspection of cached data through natural language chat without a dedicated database client.
GET a Redis key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| session_name | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'GET a Redis key.' It doesn't state that it returns the value, handles missing keys, or requires a session. This is nearly tautological and provides no meaningful behavioral context.
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 short but under-specified. While concise, it lacks structure and essential information, making it closer to a placeholder than a helpful definition.
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 low schema coverage and no annotations, the description fails to provide necessary context such as return format, error behavior, or session handling. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0% and the description mentions no parameters. The tool has two parameters (key, session_name) with no explanation of their semantics or defaults, leaving the agent to guess.
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 'GET a Redis key' states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like redis_set, redis_delete, and redis_keys by naming the operation, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios (e.g., retrieving a value vs listing keys) or prerequisites like needing a connection or session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.