Keeta Network 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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's for runtime discovery, lists specific target categories (Core SDK fixed vs. Anchor SDK dynamic), and explains how dynamic targets auto-discover new services. However, it lacks details on output format, rate limits, or error handling, which are minor gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and examples. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (runtime discovery with dynamic targets) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what the discovered methods/properties look like, which is a minor gap given the lack of output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of the 'target' parameter in detail, categorizing Core SDK vs. Anchor SDK, listing fixed and dynamic values with examples, and providing usage tips (e.g., 'start with AnchorCatalog'). This goes well beyond the schema's enum and description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover available methods and properties on Keeta SDK objects at runtime.' It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('methods and properties on Keeta SDK objects'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute tools by advising to use it FIRST to understand available operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this FIRST to understand what operations are available before calling execute tools.' It includes alternatives for dynamic targets ('start with "AnchorCatalog" to see everything available, then drill into specific services/modules') and clarifies usage contexts (e.g., 'When in doubt, start with...').

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