Set a Redis key with a value and optional session name to store data in Redis via natural language, eliminating the need for a separate database client.
SET a Redis key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| value | 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 carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'SET a Redis key,' which implies mutation but doesn't state whether it overwrites existing keys, whether it requires an existing connection, or what the return value is. No behavioral traits beyond the core operation are disclosed.
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 (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every sentence is minimal, but it lacks substance. It has no structure or front-loading of key information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations or parameter descriptions. The description omits critical context like overwrite semantics, session name purpose, and connection requirements. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only references 'key' implicitly and gives no explanation of 'value' or 'session_name'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
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 'SET a Redis key' clearly indicates a write operation on a Redis key, which distinguishes it from siblings like redis_get, redis_delete, and redis_keys through the verb. However, it is minimal and doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention the value parameter. It is clear but lacks explicit 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?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus redis_get or redis_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as an active Redis connection, or any conditions. The description offers zero usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.