Re:port Flow MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no authentication is required, the returned fields are enumerated, and critically, the slug cannot be used directly for PDF generation because the template is not yet in the workspace.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return fields, then slug source, then the important workflow caveat. Every sentence contributes actionable information without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates return fields, explains where the slug comes from, and warns about the PDF limitation with the correct follow-up path. An agent has everything needed to invoke and use the result correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains that slug is the identifier from search_gallery_templates. The description repeats this same information without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('取得します') and resource ('公開テンプレートギャラリーのテンプレート詳細'), and clarifies it is fetched by slug. It also lists the exact returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling search tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the slug from search_gallery_templates, and provides a clear conditional workflow: if PDF output is needed, use copy_gallery_template and pass the designId to get_design_parameters / generate_pdf_sync. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that no authentication is needed and explicitly notes the tool cannot directly generate PDFs from returned slugs. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though minor.

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 and informative, with key points front-loaded. It includes a critical warning in an '重要' note, which is appropriately prominent. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scope, returned fields, and critical workflow constraints. It doesn't describe pagination details in the description, but the schema mentions '残り件数として通知' for limit, so that is covered. The output schema is absent but the description lists the returned fields, making it enough.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds context by specifying that query is a partial match across title, description, tags, and category, and mentions the default and max for limit. This is slightly 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 searches the public template gallery by keyword, excluding templates already imported into the workspace. It specifies the searchable fields and the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gallery_template by focusing on search rather than retrieval.

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 explicitly says to use list_templates / search for workspace templates, not this tool. It provides a critical usage caveat about PDF generation, directing to copy_gallery_template first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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