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 the core action of checking port openness, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits such as timeout behavior, what constitutes 'open' (e.g., TCP handshake success), error conditions (e.g., host unreachable, connection refused), or whether this performs a simple connect scan versus more advanced checks. For a network diagnostic 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 perfectly concise with two short sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds valuable context about the purpose. It's front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words.

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 (network diagnostic with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (timeouts, error handling) and output expectations. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what results to expect (e.g., success/failure, latency), but it doesn't.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('host' and 'port') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, valid ranges, or protocol specifics). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('Check if a TCP port is open') on a specific resource ('on a remote host') with additional context about the goal ('Test service availability'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_ping or network_ssl_check by focusing specifically on TCP port availability testing.

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 implies usage context through 'Test service availability,' suggesting this tool is for verifying network service reachability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like network_ping (for host reachability) or network_ssl_check (for SSL/TLS verification), 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.