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. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering options beyond projectId, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no notes exist. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., note structure, fields), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper 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 the parameter 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the project scope, which is already evident from the parameter name. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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' - retrieve/get) and resource ('プロジェクト内のノート一覧' - list of notes within a project), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_note' (singular) or 'get_project_note_children', which might retrieve specific notes or hierarchical structures.

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. With siblings like 'get_project_note' (singular note) and 'get_project_note_children', the description lacks context on whether this retrieves all notes, top-level notes, or filtered sets, leaving usage unclear.

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