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 'debugging or inspection' which implies read-like operations, but doesn't disclose that this executes arbitrary commands that could be destructive, require specific permissions, or have side effects. For a tool that runs commands in containers with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 that executes commands in containers with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks (destructive potential, permission requirements), output format, error conditions, or how it differs from other container inspection tools. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 (container, command, user) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as command format examples or user privilege implications, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Execute command') and target ('inside a running container'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_logs or docker_inspect, which also inspect containers but through different mechanisms.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Use for debugging or inspection,' suggesting appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many Docker-related siblings (e.g., docker_logs for logs, docker_inspect for metadata).

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