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. It mentions the API source ('さくらのクラウドAPI') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what happens if no databases exist. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more fluent in English context.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate basics: purpose, parameter hint, and return type. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or output structure, which are important for a read operation with no annotations.

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 adds basic semantics for the single parameter 'zone' ('取得対象のゾーン' - target zone for retrieval), but doesn't explain what zones are available, their format, or examples. It compensates partially but not fully for the schema 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's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIからデータベース一覧を取得します' (retrieves database list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - retrieves) and resource ('データベース一覧' - database list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_list' or 'get_router_list' 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_disk' or 'get_loadbalancer' that might retrieve different resource types. It simply states what the tool does without context.

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