Repsona MCP Server

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 only states the action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) without detailing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), or what the activity feed contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It lacks details on what the activity feed includes, how results are structured, or behavioral traits like pagination. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete for effective use.

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 (the 'page' parameter is documented as 'ページ番号（1が最初）' - page number starting at 1), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 states the purpose ('自分のアクティビティフィードを取得します' translates to 'Get my activity feed'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_inbox', 'get_project_activity', or 'get_task_activity_log', which also retrieve activity-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 what makes this activity feed unique compared to other activity-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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