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 'real-time' monitoring, which suggests streaming or live updates, but doesn't clarify if this is a one-time fetch or continuous tail, whether it requires file access permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or if there are rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal for a tool that could have significant operational implications.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds usage context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler content.

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 incomplete for a tool that reads log files. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., raw text, structured data), error conditions, or important behavioral details like whether it follows rotating logs or requires specific file permissions. For a log access tool with potential security and operational implications, this leaves significant gaps.

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 ('source' and 'lines'). The description adds marginal value by implying 'lines' corresponds to 'last N lines' and 'source' to 'log file,' but doesn't provide additional context like valid source formats, line count limits, or default behavior when 'lines' is omitted (it's optional in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the 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: 'Get last N lines from a log file' specifies the verb (get) and resource (log file lines). It distinguishes from siblings like 'log_search' (searching) and 'log_get_recent' (time-based), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tmux_pane_tail' which has similar tailing functionality in a different context.

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 some usage context with 'Monitor recent activity in real-time,' which implies this is for real-time monitoring rather than historical analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'log_get_recent' (time-based) or 'log_search' (pattern-based), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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