mcp-server-cloudflare

cf_kv_get

Retrieve stored values from Cloudflare KV namespaces using namespace ID and key parameters to access persistent data.

Instructions

Get a value from KV

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": {
      "namespaceId": "<namespaceId>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "cf_kv_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`namespaceId`	Yes	KV namespace ID
`key`	Yes	Key to read
`accountId`	No	Account ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Mar 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get a value' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for missing keys, or what format the value returns. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation that likely returns data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens if the key doesn't exist, the format of returned values, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (namespaceId, key, accountId). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a value from KV'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cf_kv_keys (lists keys) or cf_kv_put (stores values), which would require a more specific description to earn a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a namespace), when not to use it, or how it differs from related KV operations like cf_kv_keys or cf_kv_put.

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

Deploy Server