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 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, whether it affects system state, or what happens if Docker Compose isn't running. The description mentions what information is displayed but doesn't cover format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'what information' for even clearer scanning.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (structured data? plain text?), doesn't mention error handling, and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to similar tools. The description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (path and all). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain default behavior when parameters are omitted, provide examples of valid paths, or clarify the relationship between the two parameters. The baseline of 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 ('List') and resource ('Compose service status') with specific attributes (running, ports, health). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_up/compose_down/compose_logs by focusing on status listing rather than control operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_ps which might serve a similar purpose for Docker containers.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over docker_ps or other monitoring tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring Docker Compose to be installed or running. There's no context about typical use cases or limitations.

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