Miyabi MCP Bundle

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 this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't clarify permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what 'accessible' means (e.g., user-specific vs. shared). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return format, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a vague understanding of its purpose.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has two parameters ('society' required, 'include_shared' optional) with 0% schema description coverage. This means both parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema, and the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters do or how they affect the listing.

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 'List accessible contexts' clearly states the action (list) and resource (contexts), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'contexts' are in this system or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'context_get', 'context_search', or 'context_store', leaving room for ambiguity about its specific role.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to contexts (e.g., 'context_get', 'context_search', 'context_share'), there's no indication of whether this is for browsing, filtering, or retrieving all contexts, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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