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. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. It adds some context about the output format ('redis:// URL'), but lacks details on what happens if the instance is not running or accessible.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its use case, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites, which are important for a tool that retrieves sensitive connection strings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'instance_id' parameter as a UUID. The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to find the UUID or format specifics. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Redis/Valkey connection string for a running instance'), specifying it returns a 'redis:// URL'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_instance' by focusing on connection strings rather than instance metadata.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to configure your application or set environment variables'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_instance' for general instance details.

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