Keeta Network MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' configuration and describes the return values, but it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it does add some context about the return structure.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third specifies return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and there's no wasted text. It efficiently conveys necessary information in a structured manner.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and return values, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or errors. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive, as it could benefit from more transparency about operational constraints.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'network' parameter documented as 'Network alias' and an enum of ['main', 'test']. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'main' or 'test' mean in context). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'configuration for a Keeta network', specifying what information is included (network ID, base token address, network account address). It distinguishes itself from siblings like keeta_anchor_execute or keeta_request_test_tokens by focusing on configuration retrieval rather than execution or token requests. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with keeta_list_sdk_methods which might also provide informational content.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'This is useful for understanding the network you are operating on before making transactions,' which suggests using this tool for preparatory checks. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use keeta_derive_account instead) or clear exclusions (e.g., when not to use it if you already have the configuration). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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