sacloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation from an API, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, error behavior, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. The Japanese purpose statement is direct, and the parameter/return documentation is efficiently formatted. No wasted words, though the return value documentation could be slightly more informative.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and comprehensive return value explanation. It's minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving room for improvement in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description includes an Args section explaining 'zone (str): 取得対象のゾーン' (zone: target zone to retrieve), which adds meaningful context about the single required parameter. However, it doesn't specify zone format, valid values, or examples, leaving some semantic gaps.

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's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIからアーカイブ一覧を取得します' (retrieves archive list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb (取得します - retrieves) and resource (アーカイブ一覧 - archive list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_disk or get_icon_list beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for archive retrieval, or comparisons to other list tools like get_server_list or get_disk. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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