Repsona 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 states it retrieves the inbox but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, safe, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or details error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves user data access.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of messages, metadata), error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a data retrieval tool with user context, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'status' documented as accepting values like 'all', 'unread', or 'read'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 verb '取得します' (get) and the resource '自分の受信トレイ' (my inbox), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_inbox_unread_count' or 'update_inbox', which would require explicit comparison for a higher 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_inbox_unread_count' for counts or 'update_inbox' for modifications. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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