Repsona MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what 'space information' includes, whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, though the brevity contributes to the vagueness noted in other dimensions.

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 apparent simplicity (0 parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'space information' includes, whether this refers to workspace metadata, user permissions, or other space-related data. With no output schema to clarify return values, the description should provide more context about what information is retrieved.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not creating confusion about non-existent parameters.

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 'スペースの情報を取得します' (Get space information) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('スペース' - space), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (like get_project, get_task, get_me, etc.) that also retrieve information about different resources, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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. With 40+ sibling tools including many other 'get_' operations (get_project, get_task, get_me, etc.), there's no indication of what specific 'space information' this retrieves or when it's appropriate versus other information-retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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