Retrieve a Workers KV key's value, metadata, and expiration from a specified namespace by ID or title. Use it to inspect stored key details through cloudflare-mcp.
Read one key (value + metadata + expiration) from a Workers KV namespace by namespace id or namespace title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| namespace | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the salient behavioral fact that the return includes value, metadata, and expiration. However it says nothing about permissions, error semantics for a missing key, or read-only safety, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, return contents, and addressing modes are all packed efficiently without redundancy.
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 simple single-key get with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose, target resource, and namespace addressing adequately. Only usage guidance relative to cf_kv_set is missing, which is a minor gap for this low-complexity tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies that the namespace argument accepts either an id or a title, which the schema does not convey, but it adds nothing about the required 'key' parameter beyond the obvious.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one key from a Workers KV namespace), and enumerates what is returned (value + metadata + expiration). It implicitly contrasts with the write sibling cf_kv_set via the 'read one' framing, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the cf_kv_set sibling that would be the obvious alternative for writing. The description says what the tool does but not when an agent should reach for it over other KV operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.