cachly-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: provisioning times (~30 seconds for free tier), payment flow (Stripe checkout URL for paid tiers), and available service tiers with specific specifications. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides essential operational details in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information about provisioning behavior and tier specifications.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about what happens after invocation (provisioning times, payment flow). It could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns (instance ID, connection details, or the Stripe URL) since there's no output schema, but it covers most operational aspects well.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning and implications of the 'tier' parameter - detailing each tier's specifications (memory size, pricing, features like Dragonfly + Semantic Cache). This goes well beyond what the schema's enum provides.

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 ('Create a new managed Valkey/Redis cache instance') and resource ('on cachly.dev'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_instance or get_instance. It provides concrete details about the service being provisioned.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (creating new cache instances) and mentions different tiers for testing vs. production use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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