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 states the tool checks status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, errors, connectivity), whether it requires specific permissions, if it has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is too vague to guide the agent effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool with no parameters.

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 (simple status check with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns structured data about MCP servers, more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect.

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 action ('Check status') and target resource ('MCP servers used by Societies'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'society_agent_status', 'society_health_all', or 'claude_mcp_status', which appear related to status checking for societies or MCP servers.

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 tools related to status, health, or MCP servers (e.g., society_agent_status, society_health_all, claude_mcp_status, bridge_queue_status, health_check), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others.

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