Check if a field exists in a Redis hash by specifying the hash name and field key, returning true if present and false otherwise.
Check if a field exists in a Redis hash.
Args: name: The Redis hash key. key: The field name inside the hash.
Returns: True if the field exists, False otherwise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "hexistsOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return value (True/False) but does not disclose that the operation is read-only or error conditions (e.g., if the key does not exist). Minimal but adequate.
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 concise, front-loading the purpose, and uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections. No extraneous words.
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?
Despite no annotations and a simple input schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including return type. No missing information for a basic existence check.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by labeling 'name' as 'The Redis hash key' and 'key' as 'The field name inside the hash', providing context beyond the schema's type-only fields.
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 explicitly states 'Check if a field exists in a Redis hash', providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hget, hdel, and hset by focusing on existence checking.
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 implies usage for checking existence within a hash, and the sibling context (e.g., hget, hdel) helps differentiate. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/redis/mcp-redis'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server