SORACOM Data Reader MCP

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 states the tool returns a 'ダウンロード用URL（リダイレクトURL）' (download URL/redirect URL), which hints at a read-only operation that might involve redirection. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the URL is ephemeral. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient 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 description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter list, and return value. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could include more detail in parameter explanations.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors), and deeper parameter semantics. The output schema likely defines the URL structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on returns, but overall context is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters ('scope' and 'path') with brief Japanese explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, the explanations are minimal ('スコープ' for scope, 'ファイルパス' for path) and don't detail format, examples, or constraints (e.g., scope values like 'private' or 'operators/{operator_id}'). With low schema coverage, this partially compensates but remains vague.

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: 'Harvest Filesのファイルダウンロード用URLを取得します' (Get download URL for Harvest Files). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get/obtain) and resource ('ダウンロード用URL' - download URL), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_harvest_file_info' or 'list_harvest_files', which likely provide metadata rather than download URLs.

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 sibling tools like 'get_harvest_file_info' (which might provide file details) or 'list_harvest_files' (which might list available files), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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