Get Japan-specific UI rules covering date formats, pricing, CTA text, body sizes, tap targets, form labels, color semantics, and typography to build compliant Japanese websites.
日本向けUIルール（日付・価格・CTA・本文サイズ・タップ・フォーム・色の意味・書体）を返します。
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'returns' rules, with no information about output format, structure, size, or any limitations. This is a minimal read operation but lacks any behavioral detail beyond its basic function.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a compact list of content categories. There is no waste, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 description lists the rule categories returned, which helps an agent understand scope. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., structured JSON, text) and does not differentiate from sibling get_jp_* tools beyond the category list. Given there is no output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.
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 zero parameters, so the schema already trivially covers everything. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but per the rubric the baseline for 0 params is 4. It is not penalized for missing param info that cannot exist.
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 states the tool returns Japanese UI rules and enumerates specific categories (dates, prices, CTA, body size, tap, forms, color meanings, typography). This gives a clear verb-resource pairing and differentiates it from siblings like get_jp_copy_patterns or get_jp_form_spec by content domain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implied: the tool is for fetching Japanese UI rules. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_jp_legal_blocks or get_jp_form_spec, nor any exclusions. Given the list of siblings, explicit routing would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.