Validate and troubleshoot authentication issues by running diagnostic checks to identify and resolve access problems for the Personal DB MCP Server.
認証デバッグ
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "debug_auth"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it completely fails. It doesn't state whether this is a read or mutation operation, whether authentication is required itself, what side effects occur, whether it's safe, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description adds essentially zero behavioral context.
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 single Japanese phrase is technically minimal (one token), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. A 3-word description without any structured detail does not earn the tool's size. There's no front-loading of key behaviors because there's virtually no content at all.
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?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and the description is a bare 4-character phrase. While it's a zero-parameter tool, the complete absence of behavioral context and usage guidance makes it inadequate. Some threshold of explanation is still warranted for a tool named 'debug_auth' with zero structured metadata.
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, so there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline of 4 applies — there is genuinely nothing more the description could add about 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 '認証デバッグ' (Authentication debug) provides only a vague, high-level purpose. It names a resource (authentication) but offers no verb/action specificity — it doesn't say what actions are performed (e.g., verify, reset, test). It also doesn't distinguish this from siblings, which are mostly CRUD tools for various domain entities.
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 whatsoever is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The empty description provides no context for when authentication debugging is appropriate, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent would have no idea when to invoke this versus any other tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.