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 'case-insensitive' search and implies pattern matching, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is read-only (likely, but not stated), what format/log sources are supported beyond the 'source' parameter, whether results are paginated/limited, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search 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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences contribute value: the first states the action and key constraint, the second provides usage context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., log entries, counts, structured data), how results are formatted, whether there are limits/offsets, or how it interacts with sibling log tools. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full 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%, with both parameters ('query', 'source') fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates 'case-insensitive' for the query (already in schema) and implies pattern matching. No additional syntax, format examples, or constraints are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the documentation work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search logs for a pattern (case-insensitive).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('logs'), and key behavior ('case-insensitive'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log_get_errors', 'log_get_recent', 'log_get_warnings', or 'log_tail', which appear to be related log tools on the same server.

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: 'Find specific events or errors.' This implies usage for searching events/errors but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_get_errors' (which might retrieve errors without searching) or 'log_tail' (which might stream logs). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite information is provided.

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