get_service_info
みんなのテスター（スキマラボ運営）というサービスの概要・料金・仕組みを返す。個人開発者のGoogle Playクローズドテスト『テスター12人×14日間』のテスター集めを支援する相互テストコミュニティ。
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
sukimalabo-tester
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As a read-only tool with no annotations, the description adequately indicates it returns information, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded; every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless info retrieval tool, the description fully defines the output scope (overview, pricing, mechanism) and context within the platform.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With no parameters, the description adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable given the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the overview, pricing, and mechanism of a specific service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'how_to_get_testers' and 'list_recruiting_apps'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining service information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a unique and clearly defined purpose: overview, instructions, and listing. No overlap, agents can easily distinguish.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools use consistent snake_case and descriptive names, but 'how_to_get_testers' breaks the simple verb_noun pattern slightly. Still highly readable.
Tool Count3/5
Three tools is minimal but covers the core functionality for a niche service. Not overly thin given the specific domain, but could be expanded.
Completeness2/5
Missing obvious operations like 'register_app' or 'apply_to_test'. The surface supports information retrieval only, not interaction or management.