redis_get
Safely retrieve the value and TTL of a string key using only read-only Redis commands permitted by a configurable allowlist.
Instructions
GET a string key and its TTL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Safely retrieve the value and TTL of a string key using only read-only Redis commands permitted by a configurable allowlist.
GET a string key and its TTL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only says it returns TTL but does not clarify whether it returns the value, what happens if key missing, or safety (read-only vs. destructive). For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words; front-loads action and resource.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter, but no output schema or annotations. Description covers basic action but omits return value details and error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
Description adds no extra meaning to the schema's 'key' parameter beyond calling it a 'string key'. No format, constraints, or examples provided, despite 0% schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a string key and its TTL, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like redis_command or redis_scan.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., redis_scan for listing keys) or any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TeaBambooNGU/mcp-redis-allowlist'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server