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 what the tool does without mentioning behavioral traits like pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned activity log. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 fetching activity logs (which often involve pagination and structured data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation without additional information.

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, clearly documenting all three parameters (projectId, noteId, page) in Japanese. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high 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 action ('取得します' - get/fetch) and resource ('プロジェクト内のノートのアクティビティログ' - activity log of notes within a project), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_activity' or 'get_project_note_history', which reduces clarity about its specific scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires specific permissions or differs from related tools like 'get_project_note_history' or 'get_project_activity' in the sibling list.

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