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 adds valuable context: it mentions 'authenticated operations requiring an account,' lists common methods and properties, and references auto-resolution rules via keeta_client_execute. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or specific authentication requirements beyond the seed parameter, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second guides usage, the third lists methods, the fourth details properties, and the fifth explains argument resolution. There's minimal waste, though the list of common methods is somewhat lengthy but informative.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, methods, properties, and argument resolution, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or specific behavioral traits like side effects or permissions. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what to expect from executions would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'Arguments are auto-resolved (see keeta_client_execute for resolution rules),' clarifies that 'GET_PROPERTY' is used for reading properties with examples, and lists common methods and properties, enhancing understanding of the 'method' and 'args' parameters. This elevates the score above baseline.

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: 'Execute any method on the Keeta UserClient (authenticated operations requiring an account).' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('Keeta UserClient'), and scope ('authenticated operations requiring an account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like keeta_client_execute (which handles argument resolution) and keeta_list_sdk_methods (which lists methods).

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: it directs users to 'Use keeta_list_sdk_methods with target "UserClient" to discover available methods,' naming a specific alternative tool. It also clarifies that it's for 'authenticated operations requiring an account,' implying keeta_client_execute might be for non-authenticated or general cases, though not explicitly stated as an exclusion.

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