Set or update a key-value entry in an existing BrewPage KV store using the required owner token.
Set or update a key in an existing BrewPage KV store. Requires owner token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | KV store ID | |
| key | Yes | Key to set | |
| value | Yes | Value to assign to the key | |
| namespace | Yes | KV store namespace | |
| ownerToken | Yes | Owner token received when the KV store was created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an auth requirement (owner token) and that the store must pre-exist, which is real value, but it omits overwrite semantics for an existing key, failure behavior for unknown namespaces, and any response indication.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scoping constraint about the store needing to exist is front-loaded ahead of the auth note.
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?
Five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description should do more. It covers purpose and prerequisites adequately but leaves overwrite behavior and return expectations unstated for a mutation 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 100%, so all five parameters including ownerToken and namespace are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a passing mention of the token requirement and nothing about key/value format constraints.
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 pair ('Set or update') plus the exact resource ('a key in an existing BrewPage KV store'). The write-oriented verb cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_kv, though it doesn't explicitly name publish_kv as the store-creation alternative.
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?
'Existing' implies the store must already exist and 'Requires owner token' implies a prerequisite credential, but neither is framed as explicit when/when-not guidance. No alternative is named for creating a store or for reading a key back.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.