ACOMO MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, side effects, or response format. For a tool that presumably makes external API calls, this lack of behavioral information is critically 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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure is efficient and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 complex tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what errors might occur, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (body, operationId, pathParams, query), the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'operationId' in the action but doesn't explain what it is, how to obtain valid values, or what the other parameters do. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'operationIdを指定してAPIを呼び出す' (specify operationId to call API) states the basic action but is vague about what resource it operates on and doesn't distinguish from siblings. It mentions 'API' generically rather than specifying what type of API or what the tool actually does with it. Compared to siblings like 'list_apis' or 'describe_api', it's unclear what makes this tool unique beyond the basic verb 'call'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'generate_request_template' and 'describe_api', there's no indication of when this direct call tool should be preferred over preparatory or descriptive tools.

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