sacloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool creates a server and disk, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if creation fails. The description adds some context about the creation process but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences, but it's not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second and third sentences provide procedural guidance that might be better placed elsewhere. The structure includes an 'Args' and 'Returns' section, which is helpful, but the main description could be more focused on the tool's core functionality.

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?

Given the complexity of a server creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), parameter meanings, error handling, and the return value structure (only vaguely mentions 'サーバ一覧のJSONレスポンス'). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description does not provide sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what 'zone' represents, valid values for 'gen', or units for 'mem'). It mentions CPU and memory in the context of checking plans but doesn't clarify parameter semantics. This is inadequate given the coverage gap.

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 creates a server using the Sakura Cloud API ('さくらのクラウドAPIからサーバを作成します'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_disk' or 'get_server_list' by focusing on server creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_bridge' or 'create_router' beyond the resource type.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning that users should check server plans and select one before creation, and that a disk should be created after server creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_server_plan' for planning or 'create_disk' separately), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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