cachly-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'real-time stats,' implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific metrics without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (monitoring with multiple metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or operational constraints, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in a real-time context.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (instance_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what instance_id represents (e.g., cache identifier, name, or UUID). However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline score is 4, but the lack of semantic clarification reduces it to 3, as the description adds no value beyond 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get real-time stats') and resource ('for a cache instance'), listing concrete metrics like memory usage, hit/miss rate, commands/sec, connected clients, keyspace info, and uptime. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cache_get, cache_keys, or cache_ttl by focusing on performance monitoring rather than data retrieval or management.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like get_instance or get_api_status, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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