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 states the tool retrieves details (取得), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate for a basic read operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions) and return values. It's complete enough for simple use but misses context that would help an agent invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 description mentions '指定したプロジェクト内の特定のノート' (a specific note within a specified project), which aligns with the two parameters (projectId and noteId). Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are described in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships.

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: '指定したプロジェクト内の特定のノートの詳細を取得します' (Retrieves details of a specific note within a specified project). It specifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (ノート/note), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_notes (which likely lists notes) or get_project_note_comments (which retrieves comments). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_note_history or get_project_note_activity_log, which might also retrieve note-related details.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project and note ID), exclusions (e.g., not for listing notes), or direct comparisons to siblings like get_project_notes (for listing) or get_project_note_activity_log (for activity). Usage is implied by the action, but no explicit context is given.

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