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. It mentions the default behavior ('default shows running') and the effect of the 'all' parameter, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or permissions required, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides key usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and a key parameter. For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, it is adequate but lacks details on output structure or error conditions, which could enhance completeness.

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 fully. The description adds value by explaining the semantic effect of 'all=true' ('for stopped containers'), but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers') with specific attributes ('with status and ports'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_inspect or docker_logs by focusing on listing rather than detailed inspection or log retrieval.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Use all=true for stopped containers,' indicating when to use this parameter. It implicitly distinguishes from compose_ps by specifying Docker containers (not Compose), though no explicit alternatives are named.

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