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. While 'Format' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't clarify important behavioral aspects: whether it validates input formats, handles errors, supports specific datetime formats, or returns structured output. The single example provides minimal behavioral context.

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 - a single sentence with a helpful example. Every word earns its place, and the example ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss') immediately clarifies the tool's function. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 formatting tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally provide more context about return values, error conditions, or common use cases. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output documentation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'custom pattern' which aligns with the 'format' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or formatting rules. 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: 'Format datetime with custom pattern'. It specifies the verb ('Format') and resource ('datetime'), and provides an example pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_convert' or 'time_current', which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'time_convert' and 'time_current' available, there's no indication of when this formatting tool is appropriate versus those other time-related operations. The example is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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