get_service_infoみんなのテスター（スキマラボ運営）の概要・仕組み・いまの受付と販売の状態・約束しないことを返す。個人開発者がGoogle Playのクローズドテスト（テスター12人×14日間）のテスターを、会員どうしの相互テストで集めるための場。数字はすべて運営の設定から読んだ最新の値。 / Returns an overview of "Minna no Tester" (a Japanese mutual-testing community for Google Play closed testing, 12 testers x 14 days), its current intake and sales status, and what it does NOT promise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: numbers are read as the latest values from operator configuration (freshness guarantee) and the response explicitly includes what the service does not promise, which is useful expectation-setting not derivable from the schema.
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?
Front-loaded with what is returned, then supporting context. The bilingual JA/EN content is somewhat redundant since the English largely translates the Japanese, and the 'latest values from settings' note appears only in Japanese. Still, every part carries information and nothing is padded.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return content, and it does so (overview, mechanism, intake/sales status, non-promises). Freshness semantics are covered. An agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly, though return shape specifics remain unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific return: an overview of 'Minna no Tester', its mechanism, current intake/sales status, and what it does NOT promise. The resource is clearly named and the service context (Google Play closed-test mutual testing, 12 testers x 14 days) is spelled out. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (check_optin_link, how_to_get_testers, list_recruiting_apps), so it stops short of the sibling-differentiating bar.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry-point overview and status check, and the 'what it does NOT promise' phrasing hints at expectation-setting. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead' routing against the sibling tools, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.