Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering capability but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a log retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with two short sentences that directly address purpose and basic filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward log retrieval tool.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'combined logs' means (interleaved? separate streams?), doesn't mention default behavior when parameters are omitted, and provides no information about return format or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying 'services' parameter usage for filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('combined logs from Compose services'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' by specifying 'Compose services' context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compose_ps' or 'compose_up/down' in terms of log-specific functionality.

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 minimal guidance with 'Filter by service name' but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'docker_logs' for non-Compose containers, 'log_tail' for general log tailing, or 'claude_logs' for Claude-specific logs. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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