investment-simulatorNISA/iDeCo compound growth simulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Simulation mode | tsumitate-nisa |
| inflationRate | No | Inflation rate (%) | |
| monthlyAmount | Yes | Monthly investment amount in JPY | |
| initialLumpSum | No | Initial lump sum investment in JPY | |
| investmentYears | No | Investment period in years | |
| annualReturnRate | No | Annual return rate (%) | |
| enableInflationAdjustment | No | Enable inflation adjustment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / annualReturnRateAdded value: +{
+ "default": 5,
+ "description": "Annual return rate (%)",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": -50,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / enableInflationAdjustmentAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Enable inflation adjustment",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / inflationRateAdded value: +{
+ "default": 2,
+ "description": "Inflation rate (%)",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / initialLumpSumAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Initial lump sum investment in JPY",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / investmentYearsAdded value: +{
+ "default": 20,
+ "description": "Investment period in years",
+ "maximum": 50,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "tsumitate-nisa",
+ "description": "Simulation mode",
+ "enum": [
+ "tsumitate-nisa",
+ "ideco",
+ "custom"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / monthlyAmountAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Monthly investment amount in JPY",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "monthlyAmount"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'compound growth simulation' discloses the core behavior, but with no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does not mention output format, assumptions, inflation adjustment behavior, or whether results are nominal vs. real.
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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler. Every word earns its place and it is appropriately sized for the coverage provided by the schema.
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?
A 7-parameter financial simulator with no output schema and no annotations receives only a terse one-line description. It fails to explain return value structure, available modes beyond NISA/iDeCo, or important configurable behaviors like inflation adjustment.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the NISA/iDeCo reference, which is already reflected in the mode enum.
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 identifies the domain (NISA/iDeCo) and core behavior (compound growth simulation), which distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and omits mention of the custom mode, so it is not a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The NISA/iDeCo wording implies a target use case, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.