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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement (Owner/Admin権限が必要), which is useful context about authorization needs. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as what happens on invocation (e.g., email sent, role assigned), rate limits, error conditions, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action and includes a critical permission note. There is zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and requirements, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a mutation with permission requirements, 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and permission need but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. For a tool that modifies system state, more context would be helpful to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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%, meaning all parameters (email, name, fullName, projects) are documented in the schema with descriptions in Japanese. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 tool's purpose: 'invites new members to a space' (新しいメンバーをスペースに招待します). It specifies the action (invite) and resource (space/members), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_user_role' or other user/space management tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context by mentioning that Owner/Admin permissions are required (Owner/Admin権限が必要), which implies when to use it based on authority. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_user_role' for existing members) or when not to use it, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully guided.

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