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. It mentions checking certificate properties but doesn't describe what happens during execution: whether it performs network requests, requires internet access, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a network tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 and front-loaded with key information in a single sentence: 'Check SSL/TLS certificate: expiry, issuer, validity.' The second part ('Monitor cert health.') adds some value but could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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-based certificate checking), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations. The schema handles parameters well, but overall completeness is limited.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('host' and 'port'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details 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 tool's purpose: 'Check SSL/TLS certificate: expiry, issuer, validity. Monitor cert health.' It specifies the action ('check'), the resource ('SSL/TLS certificate'), and the specific aspects examined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_port_check' or 'network_dns_lookup', which prevents a score of 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other network-related tools in the sibling list. The phrase 'Monitor cert health' hints at ongoing monitoring, but this is vague and not explicit enough for proper usage differentiation.

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