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 for behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format results are returned in, or any rate limits. It provides no behavioral context beyond the basic verb 'query'.

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 at just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the metrics domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, when to choose it over alternatives, or any behavioral characteristics needed for proper invocation.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (metric_type, society, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or provide any semantic context about what they mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the query. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Query metrics with filters' restates the tool name 'metrics_query' in a tautological way. It mentions 'metrics' as the resource and 'query' as the verb, but lacks specificity about what kind of metrics (e.g., system, application, business) or what the query returns. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'metrics_aggregate', 'metrics_collect', or 'society_metrics_summary'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'metrics_aggregate' and 'metrics_collect', there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage scenarios.

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