Repsona MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves history but doesn't specify what 'history' entails (e.g., version changes, edit timestamps, user actions), whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), or any limitations like pagination or access controls. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured historical data.

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's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves historical data. It doesn't explain what 'history' includes, the format of returned data, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with two required parameters and likely complex return values, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining relationships between projectId and noteId, or format expectations). 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/retrieve) and resource ('プロジェクト内のノートの履歴' - note history within a project), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_note' or 'get_project_note_activity_log', but the focus on 'history' provides some distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'get_project_note' (which might retrieve current state) or 'get_project_note_activity_log' (which might show activity), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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