Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redis MCP Server

Redis MCP Server

by Yuchenhui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

hexists

Checks whether a specific field exists in a Redis hash. Returns true if found, false otherwise.

Instructions

Check if a field exists in a Redis hash.

Args: name: The Redis hash key. key: The field name inside the hash.

Returns: True if the field exists, False otherwise.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "hexists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
keyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses return values (True/False) and is adequate for a simple read-only operation. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or performance characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise, two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, arguments, and return value. Could mention behavior for non-existent hash (returns False) but is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'name: The Redis hash key' and 'key: The field name inside the hash,' adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Name' and 'Key' labels.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Check if a field exists in a Redis hash.' The verb 'check' and resource 'field in a Redis hash' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hget, hset, hdel, and hgetall.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as hget. Does not mention that it is more efficient for existence checks compared to fetching the value.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools