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. It states it retrieves comments but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), pagination, sorting, error handling, or authentication needs. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying what the tool does.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to explain what 'コメント一覧' entails, but it's not completely inadequate.

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 ('projectId' and 'taskId') documented in the schema as project ID and task ID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are required to specify a task. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples.

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 ('指定したタスクのコメント一覧' - comments list for a specified task). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (retrieves task details) and 'get_task_activity_log' (retrieves activity history), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when to choose this over 'get_task_activity_log' (which might include comments) or 'get_project_note_comments' (for project notes), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing valid project/task IDs. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.

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