Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is for getting logs and debugging, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the logs are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what 'recent' means temporally. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise at just 8 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get recent Claude Code logs') followed by usage context. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 simple single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. It states what the tool does and includes a default value hint, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, error conditions, or differentiation from sibling tools. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'lines' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'default: 50 lines' which adds some context about typical usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent Claude Code logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claude_log_search' or 'claude_log_files', which appear to be related logging tools on the same server.

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 some implied usage context with 'Debug issues' and mentions a default parameter value, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claude_log_search' or 'log_get_recent'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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