Retrieves a neutral summary on a femtech topic (e.g., PMS, menopause) with sources, jurisdiction, and disclaimers. Provides evidence-based information without diagnosis.
出典に紐づく中立の要約情報を、sources と管轄と免責つきで返す。診断・断定はしない。論点=月経/PMS/更年期。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior constraints: it does not diagnose or make assertions, and it returns sources, jurisdiction, and disclaimer. No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential constraints without extraneous detail.
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 adequately conveys the tool's purpose, output components (sources, jurisdiction, disclaimer), and non-diagnostic nature. For a simple single-parameter lookup, it is sufficiently complete, though it could clarify topic_id semantics further.
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 only parameter topic_id is described in schema only as a required string, with no description. The main description mentions topic scope but does not explain topic_id format, possible values, or how it maps to the returned summary. Schema coverage is minimal and the description does not compensate.
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 specifies a clear verb ('返す' = returns) and resource ('中立の要約情報' for femtech topics), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on source-linked neutral summaries rather than verification, registry, or product category functions.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies applicability to menstruation/PMS/menopause topics, but does not state when-not-to-use or reference sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.