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 the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or response format details beyond 'JSONレスポンス' (JSON response). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized clearly. However, the Japanese-only content might limit accessibility in some contexts, slightly reducing efficiency.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter intent but lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure, or sibling differentiation. For a simple read operation, it's adequate but has clear gaps in providing full context for reliable 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. It adds minimal semantics: 'zone (str): 取得対象のゾーン' (zone: target zone to retrieve). This clarifies the parameter's purpose but lacks details like zone format, valid values, or examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, it provides basic meaning but not enough for full understanding, aligning with baseline expectations.

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からディスク一覧を取得します' (retrieves disk list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieve) and resource 'ディスク一覧' (disk list), distinguishing it from siblings like create_disk or get_server_list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval tools like get_archive_list or get_icon_list, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like get_disk_plan, or specify use cases (e.g., for inventory management). The only implied context is retrieving disk lists from Sakura Cloud, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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