brewpage-mcp

Read KV value

get_kv

Read-only

Retrieve a value from a BrewPage KV store by specifying its namespace, store ID, and key, with optional password support for protected stores.

Instructions

Fetch a value from a BrewPage KV store by namespace, ID, and key.

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": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "get_kv"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	KV store ID
`key`	Yes	Key to fetch
`password`	No	Password if the KV store is protected
`namespace`	Yes	KV store namespace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.0Oct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens when the key is missing, whether access requires a password for protected stores, or anything about return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key identifiers come first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate minimum for a four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, but with no output schema the description could have said what a fetched value looks like, and it omits any note that password is only needed for protected stores.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the optional password) are documented in the schema; the description only restates the three required ones. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('value from a BrewPage KV store') qualified by namespace, ID, and key. This clearly separates it from set_kv/publish_kv, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 versus get_json, get_page, or get_stats, and no mention of when the optional password is needed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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