Search a catalog of Japanese websites by keyword, then filter by industry or tone to find design references. Returns site matches without logos or copy.
日本サイトカタログを語彙検索します。業界・トーンで絞り込めます。ロゴや文言は返しません。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tone | No | トーンフィルタ | |
| limit | No | 件数（既定10） | |
| query | No | サイト名・スラッグ・メモに対する検索語 | |
| industry | No | 業界フィルタ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: it does not return logos or copy. However, it omits other useful behavior such as result shape, ordering, or pagination details.
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?
Three short, information-dense sentences. The main action is front-loaded, filters are summarized, and the exclusion is given last without wasted words.
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?
For a search tool with no output schema, the description is adequate for selecting and invoking it, but it does not clarify what the returned results contain beyond saying they are not logos or copy. This leaves an important gap for an agent deciding whether the result satisfies the task.
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 100%, with each parameter already documented as filters or search terms. The description adds only a high-level restatement that industry and tone can be used for narrowing, so it provides little beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 語彙検索 of the 日本サイトカタログ. It also states filtering by 業界・トーン and explicitly excludes ロゴや文言, which distinguishes it from copy-focused siblings.
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 clearly implies this is for lexical catalog searches with industry/tone filters. The statement ロゴや文言は返しません provides a useful exclusion, signaling when not to use it, though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.