Sakila MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '取得します' (get/retrieve), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this minimal description is inadequate for understanding behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but it lacks front-loading of critical details that would help an agent.

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 complexity (2 parameters with enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role among siblings, behavioral constraints, or output format. For a revenue summary tool with potential overlap with other stats tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enum values and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'group_by' and 'store_id' interact or provide usage examples. This meets the minimum viable level given the schema's completeness.

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 '売上サマリーを取得します' (Get revenue summary) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_revenue_summary' in Japanese. It provides a verb+resource but lacks specificity about what kind of revenue summary or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_store_stats' or 'get_category_performance'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but doesn't distinguish from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'get_store_stats', 'get_category_performance'), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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