Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the destructive options (removing volumes/orphan containers), it doesn't specify whether this is a reversible operation, what permissions are required, whether it stops all services or just some, or what happens to running containers. For a potentially destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the primary purpose first, followed by optional behaviors. Every word earns its place with zero waste or 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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks important behavioral details. Given this is a potentially destructive operation (stopping services, optionally removing resources) with no annotations, the description should do more to explain the implications and typical usage patterns.

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 documents all three parameters (path, volumes, removeOrphans). The description mentions the optional behaviors that correspond to the boolean parameters, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Stop Compose services') and resource ('Compose services'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compose_up (which starts services) and compose_ps (which lists services). The description goes beyond just the tool name by specifying the action and optional behaviors.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to stop Docker Compose services) and mentions optional behaviors (removing volumes and orphan containers). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though compose_up is clearly the opposite operation.

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