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. While it mentions searching and filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., tool names, descriptions, categories), whether it's paginated, how results are sorted, or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 - just two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the filtering capability in the second sentence.

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 of searching across many MCP tools and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about matching tools, how results are formatted, or what happens when no tools match. For a search tool in a rich ecosystem with 150+ sibling tools, users need more context about the search behavior and results.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'category'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'Search query' and 'Filter by category prefix' which exactly mirrors the schema descriptions. This meets 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 tool's purpose: 'Search available MCP tools by name or description. Filter by category prefix.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('MCP tools'), and scope ('by name or description'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'context_search' or 'file_search', which lowers it from a 5.

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 many sibling search tools (e.g., 'context_search', 'file_search', 'log_search'), there's no indication of when this specific MCP tool search is appropriate versus those other searches. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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