Shogi MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and returning results, but lacks details on computational behavior (e.g., performance impact, rate limits), error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective usage.

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 that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool effectively.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic information about parameters like 'sfen,' 'move,' 'depth,' 'multipv,' or 'threads.' It doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the analysis, failing to compensate for the low 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: 'analyze and return the evaluation after a specific move in the current position.' It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('current position after a specific move'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'ping,' which could provide similar or related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'ping,' nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its effectiveness in tool selection.

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