日本語で使える無料AIツールを条件で検索する。実際に開けることを確認済みのものだけが対象。コマンド入力の要否、APIキーの要否、外部送信の有無、スマホ対応、商用利用の可否で絞れる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返す件数（既定10・最大30） | |
| query | No | キーワード（名前・説明・分野に部分一致） | |
| category | No | 分野名（例: 画像生成, 議事録・文字起こし, 翻訳・ことば） | |
| phone_ok | No | trueならスマホだけで使えるものだけ | |
| no_api_key | No | trueならAPIキーが不要なものだけ | |
| no_external | No | trueなら入力内容を外部に送らないものだけ | |
| no_terminal | No | trueならコマンド入力が不要なものだけ | |
| commercial_use | No | 商用利用の可否で絞る（可 / 条件あり / 不可 / 未確認） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only returns confirmed-accessible, free, Japanese-usable tools and lists filter dimensions. However, it does not describe the return format (list of names? IDs?), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or how multiple filters combine (AND/OR). Basic transparency but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences: first states the main action and resource, second adds constraints and available filter dimensions. Front-loaded with the most critical information. No wasted words.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format or result behavior. It does not. It also does not explain how multiple filter parameters interact (AND/OR). However, it covers the core capability and the schema covers all parameters. Adequate but with notable gaps for a search tool with 8 optional parameters.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema by listing the filter criteria in natural language (e.g., 'コマンド入力の要否' for no_terminal), but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value.
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 for free AI tools available in Japanese, with a specific verb '検索する' and resource '無料AIツール'. It also adds distinguishing constraints like '実際に開けることを確認済み' (confirmed accessible), which differentiates it from siblings like get_ai_tool (likely for single tool details).
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 lists the filter criteria, implying this tool is used when you need to find tools meeting those conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names (get_ai_tool, verification_summary) provide contextual cues. More explicit guidance would be better.
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.