jp_ocr_check_dateChecks one Japanese date string, repairs OCR look-alike characters only when the corrected date is calendar-valid, and returns ok, fixed, invalid, or not_a_date.
Check one date string. status: ok (already correct), fixed (OCR look-alikes repaired; see date/iso), invalid (the date does not exist, e.g. 平成31年5月1日; nothing is guessed), not_a_date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'invalid' means the date does not exist and 'nothing is guessed', and 'fixed' means OCR look-alikes were repaired — a meaningful disclosure about mutation of the returned value.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the status glossary. Every clause (including 'nothing is guessed') carries information an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so via the status enumeration, including the 'see date/iso' pointer. The gap is that the exact result shape and the 'date' vs 'iso' fields are only gestured at, not defined.
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 coverage is 0% and the single `date` parameter has no documented format. The description partially compensates by embedding an example Japanese-era date ('平成31年5月1日') and referencing 'date/iso', implying era-style input and dual output forms, but it never states accepted input formats explicitly.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check one date string') and then enumerates the outcome statuses, which makes the operation concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling jp_ocr_fix_dates (check vs. fix) but never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: enumerating ok/fixed/invalid/not_a_date suggests this is a validation pass, and the 'fixed' status hints that repair happens here rather than in the sibling. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus jp_ocr_fix_dates, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.