Redis Cloud API 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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by describing the paginated response behavior and how to retrieve all plans using 'page' and 'size' parameters. However, it doesn't cover other potential behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are gaps for a tool with no 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second explains pagination behavior, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage instructions from behavioral details for better clarity.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

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 all parameters ('page', 'provider', 'redisFlex', 'size') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only emphasizing the 'provider' parameter requirement and hinting at pagination usage, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('available plans for essential subscriptions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-pro-plans-regions' or 'get-essential-subscription-by-id', which might cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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?

The description provides some guidance by stating 'Always ask for which provider the plans are want to be retrieved,' which implies the required 'provider' parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use instructions or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get-pro-plans-regions' for pro plans, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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