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 full burden. It mentions pagination ('ページング用キー') and returns a list, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the list structure looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized - every sentence adds value. The main purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by parameter explanations. No wasted words, though the Japanese-only text might limit accessibility.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors, etc.) and usage guidance. The output schema handles return values, so that burden is lifted. For a list operation, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides Japanese descriptions for each parameter (scope, path, limit, last_evaluated_key) that add meaning beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., path syntax, limit range) or clarify the relationship between scope and path. Given the coverage gap, this is minimal compensation.

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・ディレクトリ一覧を取得します' (Get a list of files/directories from Harvest Files). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ファイル・ディレクトリ一覧' - file/directory list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_harvest_file_info or get_harvest_file_download_url, which likely serve different purposes.

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. With siblings like get_harvest_file_info (likely for metadata) and get_harvest_file_download_url (likely for downloading), there's no indication of when list_harvest_files is appropriate versus those other tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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