redis_scan_keysIncrementally scan Redis keys with cursor-based pagination to avoid blocking the KEYS command, returning the next cursor and a bounded page of keys.
Incrementally scan Redis keys without using the blocking KEYS command. Returns the next cursor and a bounded page of keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| cursor | No | 0 | |
| pattern | No | * | |
| connection_id | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds real behavior beyond them: the scan is incremental and non-blocking, and it returns a cursor plus a bounded page, which explains pagination semantics an agent must handle. It omits rate limiting or auth context, so not a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences with the mechanism and the distinguishing non-blocking property front-loaded, and the return shape stated second. No filler or restatement of the title.
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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is only partially sufficient: it conveys the core concept and the pagination model but leaves parameter meanings and alternative selection unaddressed. Annotations cover the safety profile, which lifts it above 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% across six parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails. It references the returned cursor and a bounded page (loosely mapping to cursor and count) but says nothing about pattern matching, type filtering, response_format, or connection_id, leaving most parameters undefined in both schema and prose.
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?
States a specific verb (scan) and resource (Redis keys) and immediately differentiates the mechanism from the blocking KEYS command, which helps separate it from the raw redis_command sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool by name, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Implied usage only: the agent can infer this is for enumerating keys non-blockingly, and the 'without using the blocking KEYS command' clause hints at when it is preferable. However, it never states when to use this versus redis_command or redis_execute, nor any prerequisites such as a valid connection_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.