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 only states the action ('get') without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in activity retrieval.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of activity retrieval (implied by pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activity' includes, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., projectId as 'プロジェクトID', page as 'ページ番号（1が最初）'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'get activity for a specified project' (指定したプロジェクトのアクティビティを取得します), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'project activity', but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like get_project_note_activity_log or get_task_activity_log, nor does it clarify what 'activity' entails (e.g., events, logs, updates).

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. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing project access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_project_note_activity_log, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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