オンラインインスタント学習は、資格試験や各種学習に役立つオンライン教材・学習コンテンツを提供するオンライン学…（online.instantgakushu.jp の内容を検索して答える。ヨミタス経由）
Scored across 6 tools
Two pairs of tools (fetch/get_page and search/search_pages) have overlapping purposes, though descriptions clearly mark the older ones as deprecated. The presence of four tools that effectively do two things reduces clarity for an agent. Other tools (list_pages, site_overview) are distinct.
Tool names mix verb-only forms (fetch, search), verb_noun forms (get_page, list_pages, search_pages), and a noun phrase (site_overview). While all use snake_case and are readable, the inconsistent verb style prevents a fully predictable pattern.
Six tools is a reasonable count for a site content retrieval server, but two are deprecated aliases kept for compatibility. Excluding those, the core four tools are well-scoped. The redundant entries slightly inflate the count without adding new capability.
The server provides a complete read-only surface for its domain: site overview, page listing, search, and full-page retrieval. No obvious gaps exist for answering questions about the online learning course content. CRUD operations are not expected for this type of site content server.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）の、読み込んだページの本文を全文返します。id には、探した結果の id（ページの URL）か、ページの URL・パスを渡します。料金・日付・条件・規約など、正確さが大事なことは、答える前にこれで本文を確かめてください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 探した結果の id（ページの URL）。ページの URL かパスでも可（日本語のままでも可） |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the *full* body text and that accuracy-critical facts should be checked here, but it does not mention truncation, pagination, or any auth/rate considerations beyond the annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action (returns full body text) followed by the id usage and the accuracy recommendation. Nothing is redundant, though the accuracy sentence is somewhat verbose.
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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it appropriately focuses on scope and the id argument. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any distinction from the near-identical `get_page` sibling.
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 single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (search-result id, URL, or path, Japanese allowed). The description largely restates the same accepted forms without adding syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource in Japanese: it returns the full body text of a page from the named site (online.instantgakushu.jp). An agent can tell it retrieves page content, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling `get_page`, which appears to overlap, so it falls short of 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?
It gives an explicit usage condition: verify prices, dates, conditions, and terms against this body text before answering. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., when to prefer `get_page` or `search_pages`) or states when not to use it, so it lacks the routing clarity of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）の以前の名前の機能です（すでにつないでいる人のために残しています）。fetch と同じようにページの本文を返しますが、返す形が違います。新しく使うときは fetch を使ってください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ページの URL かパス（日本語のままでも可） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: this is a deprecated alias retained for backward compatibility and its output shape differs from fetch.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (legacy feature). The parenthetical domain and the duplicated deprecation messaging are slightly redundant but not wasteful.
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 legacy tool with no output schema, the description says what it returns, how it differs from fetch, and why it exists. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is missing.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, including the note that Japanese URLs/paths are acceptable. The description adds nothing about the url argument, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource ('ページの本文を返す') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch by noting the return format differs. The legacy framing ('以前の名前の機能') is clear, though the identity of the tool is somewhat overshadowed by the deprecation notice.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative ('新しく使うときは fetch を使ってください') and the condition that selects it. It also explains why it still exists ('すでにつないでいる人のために残しています'), which tells the agent when NOT to pick it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）で読み込んだページの一覧を、タイトルと URL で返します。一度に 50 件ずつ（limit で最大 200 件）で、続きは offset で取れます。どんなページがあるか知りたいときや、探しても見つからないときに使います。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral value on top: page size (50), the limit ceiling (200) and offset-based continuation, plus what the payload contains (titles and URLs). It stops short of describing result ordering or empty-result behavior.
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?
Three sentences ordered as content → pagination → when-to-use, with no filler. The pagination constraints are front-loaded in the middle sentence where an agent will look for them.
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 output schema, the description accepts the burden of describing the return shape and does so ('タイトルと URL'), and pagination is fully explained. Missing only secondary details such as ordering or whether a total count is available, which are minor for a list tool whose annotations already cover safety.
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%, so the description must carry the semantics itself, and it does: limit's default of 50 and maximum of 200, and offset as the continuation cursor. Only the minimum bound (1) and the offset step size are left to the schema, so the compensation is substantial but not exhaustive.
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 verb and resource ('読み込んだページの一覧を、タイトルと URL で返します') and pins the scope to one domain (online.instantgakushu.jp), including the returned fields. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the search siblings ('探しても見つからないときに使います') but never names search_pages, get_page or site_overview, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Gives two concrete trigger conditions: browsing what pages exist, and falling back when a search finds nothing. That is clear contextual guidance with no exclusions stated and no sibling named, which keeps it just below the top mark.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）から読み込んだページの中を言葉で探し、当てはまる箇所を抜粋と URL つきで返します。オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください。探せるのは読み込んだページだけで、ネット全体や、読み込んだあとの更新は含みません。見つからないときは、略語を正式な名前にする、同じ意味の別の言葉にするなど、言い方を変えて探し直してください。それでも見つからないときに返るページの候補も読み、それでも見つからなければ推測で答えず、このサイトの中では見つけられなかったと伝えてください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 探したい言葉（例: 料金 支払い方法） |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| candidates | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnly/openWorld=false, and the description reinforces and enriches that: search coverage is limited to already-loaded pages, excludes live updates and the wider web, and it prescribes a no-answer behavior instead of hallucination. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 purpose and scope, then progressive guidance for the failure path. It is longer than most definitions, but each sentence (scope limit, first-choice rule, rephrase strategy, no-result fallback) carries distinct operational 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers coverage limits, when to invoke, and failure handling. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies its boundary against the near-identical `search_pages` sibling, nor that pages must be loaded first — though the latter is strongly implied.
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 coverage is 100% with one well-described parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how to construct the query value (expand abbreviations to full names, substitute synonyms) when the first attempt fails, which adds strategy-level meaning the schema does not carry.
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?
Names a specific verb (探す) and an explicitly scoped resource (pages loaded from online.instantgakushu.jp), and specifies the return shape (抜粋 + URL). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `search_pages`, which an agent could easily confuse with this 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?
Gives clear routing guidance ('オンライン学習講座 について質問されたら、まずこれを使ってください') plus a retry protocol (rephrase, expand abbreviations, use synonyms) and a terminal fallback (read suggested pages, then admit the site doesn't contain it rather than guessing). It never names an alternative sibling such as search_pages or fetch, so the when-not branch is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）の以前の名前の機能です（すでにつないでいる人のために残しています）。search と同じようにサイトの中を探しますが、返す形が違います。新しく使うときは search を使ってください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | 探したい言葉（例: 料金 支払い方法） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: it is a deprecated alias kept for backward compatibility and returns a different shape than search.
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-loads the deprecation/legacy status and the alternative, then adds the return-shape difference. Three compact sentences with essentially no filler.
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 legacy alias with full read-only annotations and no output schema, this is largely complete: it covers identity, relationship to `search`, and migration guidance. The one gap is that it says the return format differs without saying how, which matters when an agent must parse the result.
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 50%: `query` is documented in the schema but `limit` (default 5, max 20) is not. The description mentions neither parameter nor any query syntax or limit semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 this is the legacy-named feature that searches within the site, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` by noting the return shape differs. It is specific about verb and resource, though the title still labels it ambiguously as '以前の名前' (previous name).
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?
It gives an explicit routing directive: '新しく使うときは search を使ってください' (use search for new usages) and explains it is retained for existing integrations. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explain any scenario where this tool remains the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
「オンライン学習講座 社員教育にも使える」（online.instantgakushu.jp）がどんなサイトかを返します。種類・紹介文・読み込んだページ数・主なページが分かります。最初にサイトの全体像をつかみたいときに使います。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds what comes back (site type, description, page count, main pages), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about freshness, caching, or auth/scope requirements.
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?
Three compact clauses: identity/domain, returned content, and the invocation trigger — front-loaded with the return contents. No filler, though the quoted site title is slightly redundant padding before the domain.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies both scope (which site) and expected return fields, which is close to complete. It stops short of explaining how the returned 'main pages' relate to sibling tools like list_pages.
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 per calibration the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on parameter semantics, instead naming the single site the tool covers, which is the only input-like information an agent needs.
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 verb (返します) and resource (site overview for the named domain), then enumerates what it returns: type, description, loaded page count, main pages. It reads as a summary/introspection tool distinct from fetch/get_page/list_pages, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: use it when you first want to grasp the overall picture of the site (最初にサイトの全体像をつかみたいとき). That is clear context for invocation, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. use search_pages for a specific query instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
search1 field changedOutput schema / properties / candidatesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}fetchget_pagelist_pagessearchsearch_pagessite_overviewAI学習・オンライン教材を提供する「インスタント学習」は、資格試験・検定試験・ビジネススキルなどの学習を、イ…（instant.aigakushu.online の内容を検索して答える。ヨミタス経由）
SEO コンサルタントの柏崎剛が運営する、検索エンジン対策の情報サイトです。（tsuyoshikashiwazaki.jp の内容を検索して答える。ヨミタス経由）
XR（AR/VR/MR）に関する情報をメインに扱うサイトです。（orecen.com の内容を検索して答える。ヨミタス経由）
いざ貸すは、持ち家を貸したい方や、所有物件の賃貸管理を見直したい方のための賃貸管理一括査定サービスです。（izakasu.jp の内容を検索して答える。ヨミタス経由）
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
